"Proof" of gravity?

I promise this is not stupid

Imagine you shoot an arrow aiming the sky, it goes up, then it stops in air for a milisecond and then if falls to the ground making a parabola. In a FE model, wouldn't the earth go up, closing the angle of ascending and "hiting" the arrow? To the shooter, it'd have the effect of the arrow touching the ground in a straight line.

Another one: In RE, more mass, means more attraction, how come in the FE model when you drop something like a lollipop or something with more weight in one extreme, this touches the ground the first of all? Shouldn't it has no effect in the FE model?

Yes and No. At the time the arrow was fired it was traveling upwards (due to its location on the FE) at the same speed that the FE was. However, because the FE is in a perpetual state of acceleration the FE continues to accelerate and eventually overtakes the arrow with its greater speed. So yes the Earth does in fact "hit" the arrow. This overtaking has a physical appearance that is the same as the efffects gravity would have on the arrow in the RE model.

Its like releasing a balloon inside of a moving car. As long as the car is moving steadily (and the windows are closed) the balloon will not move to the back of the car.

However, this scenario raises another question:
If gravity does not influence tha falling of an arrow in the flat Earth model, how come an arrow that is fired strait up will fall with the tip (the heaviest part) down?

Imagine you shoot an arrow aiming the sky, it goes up, then it stops in air for a milisecond and then if falls to the ground making a parabola. In a FE model, wouldn't the earth go up, closing the angle of ascending and "hiting" the arrow? To the shooter, it'd have the effect of the arrow touching the ground in a straight line.

No, the arrow would follow the exact same path.

Another one: In RE, more mass, means more attraction, how come in the FE model when you drop something like a lollipop or something with more weight in one extreme, this touches the ground the first of all? Shouldn't it has no effect in the FE model?

The effect you are referring to is due to air friction, not gravitation.

If gravity does not influence tha falling of an arrow in the flat Earth model, how come an arrow that is fired strait up will fall with the tip (the heaviest part) down?

Air friction.  If you shot an arrow in a vacuum it would land at the angle at which it was fired.

Air friction?!

Whaaaaa?!

Yes, air friction.

If you drop a feather and a bowling ball in a vacuum from the same distance which one hits the ground first?

In the way that air friction causes things to fall heaviest side first, since gravity doesn't care what the mass of the object is.

It's threads like this that make me wonder how some schools can leave people so hopelessly undereducated in physics, and why they then try to argue from ignorance as though they actually know something. Everything Robbyj has said in this thread is correct.

Osama, I wonder who of us (FE & RE) are less educated, but well, that ain't the topic.

Robbyj, you said "gravity", so I'll asume you're taking the RE point of view, and I'm sorry to tell you that we consider that mass DOES affect gravity: More mass, more gravity attraction. That is not a discussion, it's a scientifical fact for RE. And besides, could you please send me some video with an explanation about how it works in the way you say or something else than your words about this air friction making the heaviest part of a body head down? Thank you.

Wardogg, I know you're a RE'er, but I don't see the point in your question.

Osama, I wonder who of us (FE & RE) are less educated, but well, that ain't the topic.

Robbyj, you said "gravity", so I'll asume you're taking the RE point of view, and I'm sorry to tell you that we consider that mass DOES affect gravity: More mass, more gravity attraction. That is not a discussion, it's a scientifical fact for RE. And besides, could you please send me some video with an explanation about how it works in the way you say or something else than your words about this air friction making the heaviest part of a body head down? Thank you.

Wardogg, I know you're a RE'er, but I don't see the point in your question.

Do you think he made air friction up? Have you never seen an F1 car?

I promise this is not stupid

Not the best start, but let's go with it anyway...

Imagine you shoot an arrow aiming the sky, it goes up, then it stops in air for a milisecond and then if falls to the ground making a parabola. In a FE model, wouldn't the earth go up, closing the angle of ascending and "hiting" the arrow? To the shooter, it'd have the effect of the arrow touching the ground in a straight line.

Another one: In RE, more mass, means more attraction, how come in the FE model when you drop something like a lollipop or something with more weight in one extreme, this touches the ground the first of all? Shouldn't it has no effect in the FE model?

As others have already said, gravitational attraction and the Earth accelerating upwards are exactly equivalent - the effects that we call 'gravity' can be exactly reproduced by sitting in an accelerating reference frame.  These diagrams make the comparison nicely:



As for the argument over atmospheric drag (or 'air resistance'), it is that effect that makes a feather fall slower than a bowling ball on Earth.  Gravitational attraction accelerates all masses equally, so in theory if you drop a hammer and a feather at the same time in a vacuum, both will hit the floor at the same time.  You can take the NASA Moon landing videos as proof of this principle, where they did this test for real (if you're an FE'er then I suppose this same test could have been done in a large vacuum chamber with time-altered video to mimic the Moon's weaker gravitational field).

Here is the video to prove it.

We know that if you drop an arrow from a level position it will rotate to hit the floor point-first.  This will not happen in a vacuum, but happens on Earth since the arrow head is more aerodynamic (it experiences less drag) than the feathered other end.  The other end is therefore decelerated by drag more, so the arrow rotates.

Does that help clear this up?

Here's my explanation:


Thus, the heavier side eventually falls first.

maybe that's why toast always lands butter side down

*waits for the cat with toast on it's back link*

wouldn't it make more sense just to butter the cats back? No point wasting a slice of bread.

Robbyj, you said "gravity", so I'll asume you're taking the RE point of view, and I'm sorry to tell you that we consider that mass DOES affect gravity: More mass, more gravity attraction. That is not a discussion, it's a scientifical fact for RE. And besides, could you please send me some video with an explanation about how it works in the way you say or something else than your words about this air friction making the heaviest part of a body head down? Thank you.

Did Matrix's post clear that up for you?

Osama, I wonder who of us (FE & RE) are less educated, but well, that ain't the topic.

Taking a particular stance in the FE/RE debate has no correlation with education, though most RE'ers on here don't seem to have taken a Physics class in their life.

Taking a particular stance in the FE/RE debate has no correlation with education, though most people on here don't seem to have taken a Physics class in their life.

Fix'd

I find myself (at least partially) agreeing with Osama. If anything can be said for FE'ers, it's that they know their physics. People should restrict themselves to arguing topics that aren't completely beyond their comprehension.

If anything can be said for FE'ers, it's that they know their physics. People should restrict themselves to arguing topics that aren't completely beyond their comprehension.

...

Come on man, seriously? I'd say the FE/RE fail ratio when it comes to physics is pretty close to 1.  That excludes trolls and n00bs, of course, who don't know enough to even fail properly.

I wasn't generally comparing the scientific knowledge of FE'ers to that of RE'ers. It is undeniable that there are a large number of knowledgable RE'ers on these forums, but when it comes to discussions about conventional scientific theories such as GR, most FE'ers appear to have done their homework. When they aren't using circular logic, or trying to confuse you using "Chewbacca defense"-like arguments, or derailing threads by arguing semantics, FE'ers can actually make very logical scientific arguments (if it suits them).

Flat Earth turd-physics such as bendy light and UA are a whole different subject of course. I'm talking about actual science here.

Well, I wanted an explanation, and I obtained it, so I'm thankful.
I ain't gonna to argue 'cause effectively, I'm a letters man, and I don't know much about physics. But I'd like some RE'er able to show how it really work for us.

I'll keep thinking on questions!

But I'd like some RE'er able to show how it really work for us.

What do you want to know?

I'll keep thinking on questions!

That's the spirit Now all we need is a few more people with the right idea!

But I'd like some RE'er able to show how it really work for us.

Matrix's explanation applies to RE.

Quote from: Kira-SY on September 22, 2008, 06:28:21 AM

But I'd like some RE'er able to show how it really work for us.

What do you want to know?

Quote from: Kira-SY on September 22, 2008, 06:28:21 AM

I'll keep thinking on questions!

That's the spirit Now all we need is a few more people with the right idea!

A: In the void, a hammer, or a lollipop, would fall with the heaviest side down?
B: Do you agree with the FE explanation of the falling arrow? Sometimes I'm a bit lost 'cause of the english, remember it's not my mother tongue 

A: In the void, a hammer, or a lollipop, would fall with the heaviest side down?

If by void you mean vacuum, no.

A: In the void, a hammer, or a lollipop, would fall with the heaviest side down?
B: Do you agree with the FE explanation of the falling arrow? Sometimes I'm a bit lost 'cause of the english, remember it's not my mother tongue 

A: Robb's right, the hammer/arrow/whatever will fall exactly as you drop it without rotating
B: I'm a bit lost myself here - which FE explanation are you referring to? I posted my own one earlier which I stick by... Let's say you have a giant, 1 tonne sheet of paper attached to a stick with a bowling ball on the other end - the giant sheet of paper will still fall more slowly since it is not as aerodynamic (it experiences more drag) and so the lighter bowling ball hits the ground first...

Since english is a second language I'll show you with math to better understanding.

W = weight   M = mass   g = gravitation  F = force  a = acceleration

W =  M*g

W = F

F = m*a

a = F/m = W/m = mg/m

a = mg/m = g

a = g

If gravity does not influence tha falling of an arrow in the flat Earth model, how come an arrow that is fired strait up will fall with the tip (the heaviest part) down?

Does this mean that if you throw an arrow up with the head pointing down it'll stay pointed down while it's still travelling up?

LOL @ Twat's sig