Falling Objects

Hi,

This is my first post after many, many, many weeks lurking around and reading about all the theories given by folk who believe that the Earth is flat. One in particular is easy to disprove, and that is the belief that Gravity doesn't exist, and that the Earth is constantly accelerating upwards.

Try this. Take two objects : A pea, and a large watermelon. Which hits the ground first? If the Earth is accelerating upwars to "catch" the objects, then they would surely both hit the ground at the same time. But they don't, so how do you explain this?

Hi,

This is my first post after many, many, many weeks lurking around and reading about all the theories given by folk who believe that the Earth is flat. One in particular is easy to disprove, and that is the belief that Gravity doesn't exist, and that the Earth is constantly accelerating upwards.

Try this. Take two objects : A pea, and a large watermelon. Which hits the ground first? If the Earth is accelerating upwars to "catch" the objects, then they would surely both hit the ground at the same time. But they don't, so how do you explain this?

Whether the earth is accelerating or has a gravitational pull, falling objects would still encounter air resistance.

Einstein theorized that the effects of acceleration and gravity would be indistinguishable from each other. Look up the equivalence principle.

This is my first post after many, many, many weeks lurking around

I find this very hard to believe. This question has been asked and answered so many times before.

Quote from: LectricVersion on June 28, 2009, 07:52:07 AM

This is my first post after many, many, many weeks lurking around

I find this very hard to believe. This question has been asked and answered so many times before.

When I first started learning FET, I had a very similar question. I understand why he's confused.

 

Hi,

This is my first post after many, many, many weeks lurking around and reading about all the theories given by folk who believe that the Earth is flat. One in particular is easy to disprove, and that is the belief that Gravity doesn't exist, and that the Earth is constantly accelerating upwards.

Try this. Take two objects : A pea, and a large watermelon. Which hits the ground first? If the Earth is accelerating upwars to "catch" the objects, then they would surely both hit the ground at the same time. But they don't, so how do you explain this?

Unfortunately you?re wrong. Both the pea and the watermelon will hit the ground at the same time. Any air resistance effects will be negligible. Same thing if you fire a gun parallel with the ground and drop a bullet from the same height they will both hit the ground at the same time, barring any significant lift or wind resistance. There is not a simple test like you speak of we can do ourselves to prove gravity over UA.

You say that a pea and watermelon would not suffer from air resistance -fine, assume it was a feather and a hammer.         The hammer will obviously hit the ground first due to air resistance. How does this work with an accelerating Earth rather than gravity?

The hammer will obviously hit the ground first due to air resistance. How does this work with an accelerating Earth rather than gravity?

You just answered your own question.

Will you noobs stop asking this same question ad infinitum and fucking use your brain (along with a high school physics textbook, if you need one) to figure out that there would be absolutely no difference between the two models in this respect.

Ah, nobody provides a satisfying answer and everyone tells the thread starter to read a book etc. If youre so damn awesome then why dont you just answer with an all-might undeniable solution to this instead of talking shit.

Ah, nobody provides a satisfying answer and everyone tells the thread starter to read a book etc. If youre so damn awesome then why dont you just answer with an all-might undeniable solution to this instead of talking shit.

I have. Many times. As have most other FEers. Use the search, you should get a good few pages of answers to this same question at least.

You say that a pea and watermelon would not suffer from air resistance -fine, assume it was a feather and a hammer.         The hammer will obviously hit the ground first due to air resistance. How does this work with an accelerating Earth rather than gravity?

How bout a feather and hammer on the moon, where there's no air resistence?
http://www.youtube.com/v/5C5_dOEyAfk&hl=en&fs=1&

How bout a feather and hammer on the moon, where there's no air resistence?
http://www.youtube.com/v/5C5_dOEyAfk&hl=en&fs=1&

Sorry, what does this have to do with anything, and what point are you trying to make?

The point hes trying to make should be abvious after reading his reply. The link proves that traveling to space is very bossible and if the experiment was performed there, the hammer would hit ground before the feather.

Sorry LectricVersion, but no matter what the weight of the object is, it will fall at 9.8m/s/s, given that there is no air resistance.
This can be a little tricky for "beginners" to get their head around, but with no air to slow them down, the Hammer and the feather will reach the ground at the same time... Weather you believe in RE Gravity or FE Universal Acceleration.

The point is AIR RESISTANCE SLOWS THE FEATHER!!!! if the feather doesnt move but the Earth does, how does this work?

The point is AIR RESISTANCE SLOWS THE FEATHER!!!! if the feather doesnt move but the Earth does, how does this work?

There is still air in FET. Look up the equivalence (spelling?) principle.

you miss my point.

If the objects are not actually moving but the Earth is - how are they slowed by air resistance?

you miss my point.

If the objects are not actually moving but the Earth is - how are they slowed by air resistance?

I understood your point. The earth pushes against the air, which pushes against the object. Look up the equivalence principle.

you miss my point.

If the objects are not actually moving but the Earth is - how are they slowed by air resistance?

The air is moving upwards with the Earth, providing the resistance to slow down the feather.  Has anyone told you to look up the equivalence principle yet?

But the feather according to you is not moving. Do you mean to say it is pushed upwards?

But the feather according to you is not moving. Do you mean to say it is pushed upwards?

That's correct.  With no air resistance it would be staying still, but with air resistance it is actually being pushed upwards.

Quote from: CACTUSJACKmankin on June 29, 2009, 04:02:22 AM

How bout a feather and hammer on the moon, where there's no air resistence?
http://www.youtube.com/v/5C5_dOEyAfk&hl=en&fs=1&

Sorry, what does this have to do with anything, and what point are you trying to make?

The moon has no atmosphere so the only force acting on the feather and hammer is gravity. Is the moon accelerating upwards like the earth? we can see from here that the moon is spherical.

It's also neat because it shows humans outside of the earth who have seen the shape of the earth.

The moon has no atmosphere so the only force acting on the feather and hammer is gravity. Is the moon accelerating upwards like the earth? we can see from here that the moon is spherical.

It's also neat because it shows humans outside of the earth who have seen the shape of the earth.

I still don't understand what point you are trying to make. The Moon is not the Earth, nor can we see that it is spherical, only that it has a circular cross-section when viewed from at least one direction. Moreover, video footage is not absolute proof that people actually went to the moon.

To answer the only question in your post, yes the Moon is also accelerating up according to FET.

Moreover, video footage is not absolute proof that people actually went to the moon.

Perhaps not, but moon rocks and laser reflectors on the moon are.

Quote from: CACTUSJACKmankin on June 30, 2009, 03:51:32 AM

The moon has no atmosphere so the only force acting on the feather and hammer is gravity. Is the moon accelerating upwards like the earth? we can see from here that the moon is spherical.

It's also neat because it shows humans outside of the earth who have seen the shape of the earth.

I still don't understand what point you are trying to make. The Moon is not the Earth, nor can we see that it is spherical, only that it has a circular cross-section when viewed from at least one direction. Moreover, video footage is not absolute proof that people actually went to the moon.

To answer the only question in your post, yes the Moon is also accelerating up according to FET.

The moon is not the earth but the same laws of physics (i know, silly term to be using around here) apply to both. the moon is a satellite of the earth and its gravity is sufficient to make it collapse upon itself and render it a spheroid.

Circular cross-section? i have a coin with me. let's try to orient it to the approximate perspective that we have of the moon. In order to not see the edges i need to tilt it slightly. so it's like | or slightly / and it's going upwards ^? how does anything keep from sliding off its surface? Try reconciling that with the video footage.

The moon is not the earth but the same laws of physics (i know, silly term to be using around here) apply to both. the moon is a satellite of the earth and its gravity is sufficient to make it collapse upon itself and render it a spheroid.

The Moon is a satellite of the Earth in RET, yes. Not in FET.

Circular cross-section? i have a coin with me. let's try to orient it to the approximate perspective that we have of the moon. In order to not see the edges i need to tilt it slightly. so it's like | or slightly / and it's going upwards ^? how does anything keep from sliding off its surface? Try reconciling that with the video footage.

Could you repost that in English?

OK so if everything that is affected by air resistance is moving upwards...    Are all planes also constantly moving upwards?

OK so if everything that is affected by air resistance is moving upwards...    Are all planes also constantly moving upwards?

Relative to what?

Quote from: simpson3883 on June 30, 2009, 11:16:37 AM

OK so if everything that is affected by air resistance is moving upwards...    Are all planes also constantly moving upwards?

Relative to what?

To Earth, obviously?

HAHA I am so happy I was introduced to this forum... Some of the mosr hilarious shit I've ever read. I love humanity and all of its funny odds and ends... Spice of life, eh? Gotta have some nutcases out there to be real, I suppose.