Explain me these two words

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.

I'm been saying this the whole time and I will say it again: as soon as you jump out of the plane, you are no longer accelerating. Your reference frame becomes inertial.

Quote from: AmateurAstronomer on September 17, 2008, 05:16:38 AM

Quote from: Pretentious Twat on September 17, 2008, 05:00:17 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.

They didn't always deny it. They had theories, but none worked. Only when it became unexplainable did they deny satellites and other spacecraft. It doesn't take much to prove them wrong though.

I installed a satellite dish at my parents house 3 years ago. A parabolic dish can only get data from a very focused focal point. The dish is at @55 degrees inclination. If it was seeking an antenna the antenna would grow higher the greater the distance, and the greater the hight, the more visible it would become... I've seen no antennas nor heard reference of any thousand+ foot antenna towers in neighboring towns.

The alternative explanation of balloons doesn't hold air. At the lower elevations that FE would require the balloons to be at they could never hold steady enough to support a signal.

Wow, all the respect I had for AA has been lost in these three pages. This is like, fairly basic math.

I told you all I failed remedial math 3 years running in high school. I'm a fucking art major for Christs sake. I can't wrap my head around your constant acceleration model. What is it going about a trillion google billion google miles per second by now? I do know it breaks causality, even given your FAQ explanation.

I can't wrap my head around your constant acceleration model. What is it going about a trillion google billion google miles per second by now? I do know it breaks causality, even given your FAQ explanation.

As I sit in this chair typing, it feels to me as though it travelled up about 9.8m in the last second.

When you disregard the fact that constant acceleration of the Earth would require amounts of energy approaching infinity, aswell as the inconsistencies as to what is affected by the UA, the theory [of UA] isn't too bad. As long as we all remained within the same frame of reference as the Earth, we wouldn't even notice any causality effects. Sure, if we could see anything outside of that frame of reference, it would appear to be whizzing past us at near infinite velocity - but that obviously isn't the case.

As for satellites and everything that goes with them, I've never seen a sufficient "FExplanation" either. The fact that everybody within a very large area can point their dish in roughly the same direction and all recieve a signal from the same source should be a fairly clear indicator that it can't be coming from anything as close as FET would allow. But, since satellites and sat dishes are man-made objects, you can be pretty sure that the FExplanation will involve the word "conspiracy".

As I noted a while ago, the art of arguing for FET is to tilt the playing field in such a way that all your opponents are arguing up a hill, while you sit at the top and roll iron balls marked "conspiracy" and "bendy light" down at them every once in a while. Just learn to laugh at it, and you'll start having a fun time.

The art of arguing for FET is to tilt the playing field in such a way that all your opponents are arguing up a hill, while you sit at the top and roll iron balls marked "conspiracy" and "bendy light" down at them every once in a while.

I would sig that if the earth was round.

I can't wrap my head around your constant acceleration model. What is it going about a trillion google billion google miles per second by now? I do know it breaks causality, even given your FAQ explanation.

Learn about adding speeds with relativity. The constant acceleration of 9.8m/s² is only from our frame of reference. We don't have any meaningful velocity.

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.

How does one leave physics out of a conversation about acceleration and drag?

Quote from: thewahls7 on September 16, 2008, 08:26:19 PM

Quote from: Robbyj 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. 

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.

Wouldn't that create massive updrafts?

Wouldn't that create massive updrafts?

Yes, commonly observed as the fact that air doesn't fall down because the ground is in the way.

Quote from: mpman on September 17, 2008, 12:39:11 AM

Quote from: AmateurAstronomer on September 17, 2008, 12:33:17 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.  

I know what you mean, but that is misleading. According to flat earth theory, you would have negitive acceleration, right? No longer accelerating means you are at rest, or are suspended in the air.

I know what you mean, but that is misleading. According to flat earth theory, you would have negitive acceleration, right? No longer accelerating means you are at rest, or are suspended in the air.

Except that the earth is rushing up to meet you (and pushing the air passed).

In other words, it's easy to assume that you're falling towards the earth when in reality the earth is accelerating up to you.

Quote from: thewahls7 on September 17, 2008, 08:48:25 AM

Wouldn't that create massive updrafts?

Yes, commonly observed as the fact that air doesn't fall down because the ground is in the way.

So you explain air being thinner at higher levels due to air being pushed down against the earth, therefore being more dense at sea level?

Quote from: thewahls7 on September 17, 2008, 08:53:25 AM

I know what you mean, but that is misleading. According to flat earth theory, you would have negitive acceleration, right? No longer accelerating means you are at rest, or are suspended in the air.

Except that the earth is rushing up to meet you (and pushing the air passed).

In other words, it's easy to assume that you're falling towards the earth when in reality the earth is accelerating up to you.

It isn't assumption. It is accepted in the scientific community, as well as society.

According to flat earth theory, you would have negitive acceleration, right?

Acceleration in three dimensions is a vector. It cannot be negative.

Did thewahls7 mean this?

An updraft or downdraft (air pocket) is the vertical movement of air as a weather related phenomenon. Commonly, one of two forces causes the air to move. Localized regions of warm or cool air will exhibit vertical movement. A pocket of warm air will typically be less dense than the surrounding region, and so will rise until it reaches air that is either warmer or less dense than itself. The converse will occur for a mass of cool air, and is known as subsidence. This movement of large volumes of air, especially when regions of hot, wet air rise, can create large clouds, and is the main cause of thunderstorms. Drafts can also be created by low or high pressure regions. A low pressure region will attract air from the surrounding area, which will move towards the center and then rise, creating an updraft. The reverse will naturally occur in a high pressure region, as air moves away from the high pressure center.

So you explain air being thinner at higher levels due to air being pushed down against the earth, therefore being more dense at sea level?

No, it is explained by the fact that the Earth is pushing up on the air. The air doesn't stay put because the Earth is fairly solid.

Quote from: thewahls7 on September 17, 2008, 08:53:25 AM

According to flat earth theory, you would have negitive acceleration, right?

Acceleration in three dimensions is a vector. It cannot be negative.

If you face north, and walk north, you have positive acceleration.

If you face north, and walk backwards (south) you have negitive acceleration.

Quote from: thewahls7 on September 17, 2008, 08:56:48 AM

So you explain air being thinner at higher levels due to air being pushed down against the earth, therefore being more dense at sea level?

No, it is explained by the fact that the Earth is pushing up on the air. The air doesn't stay put because the Earth is fairly solid.

That is what I meant, pardon me.

Quote from: Osama  bin Laden on September 17, 2008, 08:59:09 AM

Quote from: thewahls7 on September 17, 2008, 08:53:25 AM

According to flat earth theory, you would have negitive acceleration, right?

Acceleration in three dimensions is a vector. It cannot be negative.

If you face north, and walk north, you have positive acceleration.

If you face north, and walk backwards (south) you have negitive acceleration.

Actually, normal people walk with a constant velocity. Accelerating south is still a positive acceleration.

Did thewahls7 mean this?

Quote from: Wikipedia

An updraft or downdraft (air pocket) is the vertical movement of air as a weather related phenomenon. Commonly, one of two forces causes the air to move. Localized regions of warm or cool air will exhibit vertical movement. A pocket of warm air will typically be less dense than the surrounding region, and so will rise until it reaches air that is either warmer or less dense than itself. The converse will occur for a mass of cool air, and is known as subsidence. This movement of large volumes of air, especially when regions of hot, wet air rise, can create large clouds, and is the main cause of thunderstorms. Drafts can also be created by low or high pressure regions. A low pressure region will attract air from the surrounding area, which will move towards the center and then rise, creating an updraft. The reverse will naturally occur in a high pressure region, as air moves away from the high pressure center.

Yeah, that is what I was referring to earlier. I would believe that if the Earth was accelerating upwards, that you would be a lot more likely to see these.

Also, how many people believe the earth is flat, as opposed to the possibility of it being flat, or people that don't think it is flat, but just like to argue it? It wouldn't change my argument, but I am just wondering.

If you face north, and walk backwards (south) you have negitive acceleration.

Thanks for that.

Quote from: thewahls7 on September 17, 2008, 09:03:21 AM

Quote from: Osama  bin Laden on September 17, 2008, 08:59:09 AM

Quote from: thewahls7 on September 17, 2008, 08:53:25 AM

According to flat earth theory, you would have negitive acceleration, right?

Acceleration in three dimensions is a vector. It cannot be negative.

If you face north, and walk north, you have positive acceleration.

If you face north, and walk backwards (south) you have negitive acceleration.

Actually, normal people walk with a constant velocity. Accelerating south is still a positive acceleration.

If you are moving 10m/s d where 'd' is any direction you want to give and you slow down or decelerate to 5m/s d (i.e. still travelling in the same direction) in 1 second this is an acceleration of -5m/s/s for 1 second. Tidah, negative acceleration.

If you are moving 10m/s d where 'd' is any direction you want to give and you slow down or decelerate to 5m/s d (i.e. still travelling in the same direction) in 1 second this is an acceleration of -5m/s/s for 1 second. Tidah, negative acceleration.

No, it is an acceleration of 5 m s^-2 in the direction -d.

Quote from: Raist on September 17, 2008, 09:06:38 AM

Quote from: thewahls7 on September 17, 2008, 09:03:21 AM

Quote from: Osama  bin Laden on September 17, 2008, 08:59:09 AM

Quote from: thewahls7 on September 17, 2008, 08:53:25 AM

According to flat earth theory, you would have negitive acceleration, right?

Acceleration in three dimensions is a vector. It cannot be negative.

If you face north, and walk north, you have positive acceleration.

If you face north, and walk backwards (south) you have negitive acceleration.

Actually, normal people walk with a constant velocity. Accelerating south is still a positive acceleration.

If you are moving 10m/s d where 'd' is any direction you want to give and you slow down or decelerate to 5m/s d (i.e. still travelling in the same direction) in 1 second this is an acceleration of -5m/s/s for 1 second. Tidah, negative acceleration.

5m/s/s-d, did you forget acceleration, being derived from velocity, has a direction?


nice ninja post robo. lol.

So no Tidah?

So no Tidah?

nopes.

Quote from: thewahls7 on September 17, 2008, 09:03:21 AM

If you face north, and walk backwards (south) you have negitive acceleration.

Thanks for that.

Um... For those of you that say negative acceleration isn't real/possible.

http://selland.boisestate.edu/jbrennan/physics/notes/Motion/acceleration.htm

This is for RobbyJ

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu5yAs9FIggkANVJXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByMDhrMzdqBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw--/SIG=12o4sfeqp/EXP=1221788928/**http%3a//www.studyphysics.ca/2007/20/01_kinematics/10_acceleration.pdf

Example 3: Once you have been arrested, the officials start rolling the pickle back towards the starting
line so that Haans van der Winkle, the current champion from the Netherlands, can have a second try.
After pushing for 8.8s, they get the pickle rolling backwards (towards the startng line) at 4.31m/s.
                                                                                  i
Determine the acceleration of the pickle.
        In this example, they cause an object to speed up, but it’s moving in the opposite direction. Since
        velocity is a vector, we can just put a minus sign in front of its speed and say that it is moving in
the negative direction.

Um... For those of you that say negative acceleration isn't real/possible.

http://selland.boisestate.edu/jbrennan/physics/notes/Motion/acceleration.htm

If a is an acceleration, then -a is also an acceleration, just in the opposite direction. That does not make it negative.

This is for RobbyJ

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu5yAs9FIggkANVJXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByMDhrMzdqBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw--/SIG=12o4sfeqp/EXP=1221788928/**http%3a//www.studyphysics.ca/2007/20/01_kinematics/10_acceleration.pdf

Quote

Example 3: Once you have been arrested, the officials start rolling the pickle back towards the starting
line so that Haans van der Winkle, the current champion from the Netherlands, can have a second try.
After pushing for 8.8s, they get the pickle rolling backwards (towards the startng line) at 4.31m/s.
                                                                                  i
Determine the acceleration of the pickle.
        In this example, they cause an object to speed up, but it’s moving in the opposite direction. Since
        velocity is a vector, we can just put a minus sign in front of its speed and say that it is moving in
the negative direction.

Yes, in an arbitrary coordinate system when considering one component of the object's motion. You don't mean to tell me that you think there is some absolute definition of what constitutes a positive direction, do you?