Flat Earth moves upwards?

Quote from: James on May 09, 2010, 03:28:11 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on May 09, 2010, 03:23:30 PM

Quote from: James on May 09, 2010, 03:19:18 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on May 09, 2010, 03:16:15 PM

Facepalm.

Let's try this again. Say I have 2 objects accelerating at different rates, one at 1 m/s/s and the other at 2 m/s/s. At t=0, they are in the same spot. At t=1 second, the first object is 1 meter away, and the second is 2 meters away. At t=2 seconds, the first is 3 meters away, and the second is 6 meters away, and so on.

If 2 objects have different accelerations for any length of time, they move away from each other. This is a simple fact.

Applying this to a theoretical flat earth, we measure different rates of "gravitational" acceleration on different spots on the earth. These measurements are consistent at each spot. So there are 2 possibilities:
1. The acceleration is due to gravity and the objects will stay where they are.
2. That point on the surface of the flat earth is accelerating at a different rate than other parts of the earth, and will move away from them.

It can only be one or the other, which is it?

Neither of these things is true. You are presenting a false dichotomy to attempt to make your claims appear stronger, but I have unmasked it.

Blast, foiled again! I forgot that every bit of simple physics I ever learned was wrong!

I don't suppose you'd like to enlighten me as to where I was wrong and why?

The Earth is accelerating at the same rate as itself. Obviously if there is a heavy object on the Earth the Earth will sag an incredibly tiny amount from the compression of the object. I don't see why this is an issue.

This would cause the object being accelerated to become imbalanced.  This imbalance would result in wobble.  Kind of like loading your washing machine too heavily on one side.  This wobble would eventually tear the Earth apart.

Why do you think you know what happens in a theory you don't understand?

The Earth is not 100% dense. It can undergo compression if there is enough heavy matter on it.

The Earth is not 100% dense. It can undergo compression if there is enough heavy matter on it.

I'm pretty sure I understand your meaning: The Earth can be compressed.  But so can all matter.  And the point at which you can't compress it anymore is probably a quantum singularity.

Quote from: Sliver on May 09, 2010, 09:19:57 PM

Quote from: James on May 09, 2010, 03:28:11 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on May 09, 2010, 03:23:30 PM

Quote from: James on May 09, 2010, 03:19:18 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on May 09, 2010, 03:16:15 PM

Facepalm.

Let's try this again. Say I have 2 objects accelerating at different rates, one at 1 m/s/s and the other at 2 m/s/s. At t=0, they are in the same spot. At t=1 second, the first object is 1 meter away, and the second is 2 meters away. At t=2 seconds, the first is 3 meters away, and the second is 6 meters away, and so on.

If 2 objects have different accelerations for any length of time, they move away from each other. This is a simple fact.

Applying this to a theoretical flat earth, we measure different rates of "gravitational" acceleration on different spots on the earth. These measurements are consistent at each spot. So there are 2 possibilities:
1. The acceleration is due to gravity and the objects will stay where they are.
2. That point on the surface of the flat earth is accelerating at a different rate than other parts of the earth, and will move away from them.

It can only be one or the other, which is it?

Neither of these things is true. You are presenting a false dichotomy to attempt to make your claims appear stronger, but I have unmasked it.

Blast, foiled again! I forgot that every bit of simple physics I ever learned was wrong!

I don't suppose you'd like to enlighten me as to where I was wrong and why?

The Earth is accelerating at the same rate as itself. Obviously if there is a heavy object on the Earth the Earth will sag an incredibly tiny amount from the compression of the object. I don't see why this is an issue.

This would cause the object being accelerated to become imbalanced.  This imbalance would result in wobble.  Kind of like loading your washing machine too heavily on one side.  This wobble would eventually tear the Earth apart.

Why do you think you know what happens in a theory you don't understand? (Like the RET?

The Earth is not 100% dense. It can undergo compression if there is enough heavy matter on it.

How is something 100% dense? Density isn't a percent, moron. It's either a fraction or decimal.

You still don't get it. Yes, some compression would happen, but with different values of acceleration for any sustained period of time (which is what happens, the measured values of acceleration are constant for each individual location over time), there is no way for a flat earth to remain stuck together.

Quote from: James on May 10, 2010, 05:01:17 PM

The Earth is not 100% dense. It can undergo compression if there is enough heavy matter on it.

I'm pretty sure I understand your meaning: The Earth can be compressed.  But so can all matter.  And the point at which you can't compress it anymore is probably a quantum singularity.

What makes you think we have reached anything like that level of compression yet?

Quote from: James on May 10, 2010, 05:01:17 PM

The Earth is not 100% dense. It can undergo compression if there is enough heavy matter on it.

How is something 100% dense? Density isn't a percent, moron. It's either a fraction or decimal.

Clearly I am talking about 100% of the maximum possible density. Or do you think that matter can densify forever??

You still don't get it. Yes, some compression would happen, but with different values of acceleration for any sustained period of time (which is what happens, the measured values of acceleration are constant for each individual location over time), there is no way for a flat earth to remain stuck together.

I can see where you are going wrong, I think you will find it surprisingly simple. You have not factored in expansion, which counteracts compression. There are a number of expanding factors involved when we are discussing the Earth, these include heat from within the Earth itself (heat causes particles to move faster, with a tendency to force them apart). This is why certain objects explode in microwave ovens). Another thing which expands the surface of the Earth is rainfall. As rain falls on as particular area of ground, the ground will become saturated and swell slightly. The Earth is sustained in perpetuity through balances such as these.

What makes you think we have reached anything like that level of compression yet?

Some napkin maths could reveal startling figures.

Quote from: Lorddave on May 10, 2010, 05:04:17 PM

Quote from: James on May 10, 2010, 05:01:17 PM

The Earth is not 100% dense. It can undergo compression if there is enough heavy matter on it.

I'm pretty sure I understand your meaning: The Earth can be compressed.  But so can all matter.  And the point at which you can't compress it anymore is probably a quantum singularity.

What makes you think we have reached anything like that level of compression yet?

Why are you reading things that aren't being said?  I never said anything about reaching it, I said that's what 100% density (your terms) would be.

Quote from: General Disarray on May 10, 2010, 05:06:20 PM

You still don't get it. Yes, some compression would happen, but with different values of acceleration for any sustained period of time (which is what happens, the measured values of acceleration are constant for each individual location over time), there is no way for a flat earth to remain stuck together.

I can see where you are going wrong, I think you will find it surprisingly simple. You have not factored in expansion, which counteracts compression. There are a number of expanding factors involved when we are discussing the Earth, these include heat from within the Earth itself (heat causes particles to move faster, with a tendency to force them apart). This is why certain objects explode in microwave ovens). Another thing which expands the surface of the Earth is rainfall. As rain falls on as particular area of ground, the ground will become saturated and swell slightly. The Earth is sustained in perpetuity through balances such as these.

....

So the Earth is infinitely stretchable?

Quote from: James on May 10, 2010, 05:18:37 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on May 10, 2010, 05:04:17 PM

Quote from: James on May 10, 2010, 05:01:17 PM

The Earth is not 100% dense. It can undergo compression if there is enough heavy matter on it.

I'm pretty sure I understand your meaning: The Earth can be compressed.  But so can all matter.  And the point at which you can't compress it anymore is probably a quantum singularity.

What makes you think we have reached anything like that level of compression yet?

Why are you reading things that aren't being said?  I never said anything about reaching it, I said that's what 100% density (your terms) would be.

Quote

Quote from: General Disarray on May 10, 2010, 05:06:20 PM

You still don't get it. Yes, some compression would happen, but with different values of acceleration for any sustained period of time (which is what happens, the measured values of acceleration are constant for each individual location over time), there is no way for a flat earth to remain stuck together.

I can see where you are going wrong, I think you will find it surprisingly simple. You have not factored in expansion, which counteracts compression. There are a number of expanding factors involved when we are discussing the Earth, these include heat from within the Earth itself (heat causes particles to move faster, with a tendency to force them apart). This is why certain objects explode in microwave ovens). Another thing which expands the surface of the Earth is rainfall. As rain falls on as particular area of ground, the ground will become saturated and swell slightly. The Earth is sustained in perpetuity through balances such as these.

....

So the Earth is infinitely stretchable?

No, as with all things it can expand or compress to a certain extent, this it does on a regular basis according to a number of factors.

I can see where you are going wrong, I think you will find it surprisingly simple. You have not factored in expansion, which counteracts compression. There are a number of expanding factors involved when we are discussing the Earth, these include heat from within the Earth itself (heat causes particles to move faster, with a tendency to force them apart). This is why certain objects explode in microwave ovens). Another thing which expands the surface of the Earth is rainfall. As rain falls on as particular area of ground, the ground will become saturated and swell slightly. The Earth is sustained in perpetuity through balances such as these.

Wow, just wow. One last time then I'm out.

Point A has a measured acceleration of we'll say 9.81 m/s^2, and point B has a measured acceleration of 9.79 m/s^2. These values are shown to be constant over time, they do not change. If those points start out near the same spot, and accelerate upwards at the values above, point A will quickly acquire a larger velocity than the other, and will move upwards with an ever increasing lead over point B, hence point A would not stay on the surface of the flat Earth for long, it would shoot off into space, and point B would sink into the ground. This is not happening, or we would see mountain ranges and chasms appearing in a matter of seconds.

In the real Earth, we don't measure any movement of those points relative to the rest of the ground, so no compression or expansion is happening. Therefore the Earth is not being accelerated upwards by some unseen UA, gravitational force is the only other option.

If you don't understand that, there's nothing else I can do for you.

Quote from: Lorddave on May 10, 2010, 05:24:36 PM

Quote from: James on May 10, 2010, 05:18:37 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on May 10, 2010, 05:04:17 PM

Quote from: James on May 10, 2010, 05:01:17 PM

The Earth is not 100% dense. It can undergo compression if there is enough heavy matter on it.

I'm pretty sure I understand your meaning: The Earth can be compressed.  But so can all matter.  And the point at which you can't compress it anymore is probably a quantum singularity.

What makes you think we have reached anything like that level of compression yet?

Why are you reading things that aren't being said?  I never said anything about reaching it, I said that's what 100% density (your terms) would be.

Quote

Quote from: General Disarray on May 10, 2010, 05:06:20 PM

You still don't get it. Yes, some compression would happen, but with different values of acceleration for any sustained period of time (which is what happens, the measured values of acceleration are constant for each individual location over time), there is no way for a flat earth to remain stuck together.

I can see where you are going wrong, I think you will find it surprisingly simple. You have not factored in expansion, which counteracts compression. There are a number of expanding factors involved when we are discussing the Earth, these include heat from within the Earth itself (heat causes particles to move faster, with a tendency to force them apart). This is why certain objects explode in microwave ovens). Another thing which expands the surface of the Earth is rainfall. As rain falls on as particular area of ground, the ground will become saturated and swell slightly. The Earth is sustained in perpetuity through balances such as these.

....

So the Earth is infinitely stretchable?

No, as with all things it can expand or compress to a certain extent, this it does on a regular basis according to a number of factors.

And how does this relate to different accelerations at different points on the Earth?  After all, we're moving solid mass aren't we?

Here, do this:
Take a piece of paper, holding it in two hands, one hand on one end, the other on the opposite side.  Now move your hands up: one fast, one very slowly.  Tell me if the paper rips or not.

Quote from: Crustinator on May 08, 2010, 07:36:11 AM

Because you're either very confused or are deliberately confusing two issues.

There was confusion on both sides. When I first stated that UA and gravity follow the same principle in that there are no experiments capable of differentiating gravity from acceleration in our reference frame, Lorddave responded with the Cavendish experiment. Either he was confused with my statement or he tried to argue that there is an experiment that can distinguish between gravity and acceleration. Anyone who has seen General Relativity would notice that there is no falsehood in my statement, so I thought he was confused. However, when I made the statement "in no way does the Cavendish experiment differentiate gravity from acceleration in our frame of reference," he and Ellipsis replied against it.

Fine. I asked him how does the experiment distinguish between the two, and you came with [this post] as a response. Thus, I asked you too, and you replied with your interpretation of the experiment. There could be three reasons for this: you were confused with what I was saying, you knew what I was saying but you intended to contest my claim just to be a nuisance, or you simply failed to clarify that you were not contesting my claim but merely trying to make a distinction between the Equivalence Principle and the Cavendish experiment.

actually there is. high speed camera. it is moving upwards if acceleration is constant.
it is gravity if acceleration increases based on the inverse square law

Quote from: Sliver on May 08, 2010, 04:50:59 PM

Quote from: Jack on May 08, 2010, 04:13:15 PM

Quote from: Crustinator on May 08, 2010, 07:36:11 AM

Because you're either very confused or are deliberately confusing two issues.

There was confusion on both sides. When I first stated that UA and gravity follow the same principle in that there are no experiments capable of differentiating gravity from acceleration in our reference frame, Lorddave responded with the Cavendish experiment. Either he was confused with my statement or he tried to argue that there is an experiment that can distinguish between gravity and acceleration. Anyone who has seen General Relativity would notice that there is no falsehood in my statement, so I thought he was confused. However, when I made the statement "in no way does the Cavendish experiment differentiate gravity from acceleration in our frame of reference," he and Ellipsis replied against it.

Fine. I asked him how does the experiment distinguish between the two, and you came with [this post] as a response. Thus, I asked you too, and you replied with your interpretation of the experiment. There could be three reasons for this: you were confused with what I was saying, you knew what I was saying but you intended to contest my claim just to be a nuisance, or you simply failed to clarify that you were not contesting my claim but merely trying to make a distinction between the Equivalence Principle and the Cavendish experiment.

How would acceleration explain this?  If you tie a string between two points and pull it tight, the string is level.  However, move the points closer together, and the string sags in the middle.  If it's the ground moving up to meet a NON-MOVING object, why does the string sag and not stay at the same level?  Even if the string is being forced against itself, what stops it from moving sideways?

Here's an image for reference.

Because the object is moving the whole time.  Everything is moving "up" at the same rate.  Why does the string sag? 
Air pressure mixed with the fact that the posts were moving upwards miliseconds prior to the string (since the posts have a direct line to the ground and the string relies on the air pushing it down).

Best bet is to prove gravity exists (like I did) and have FEers invent the "gravity nullifying field".

No, its because the object isn't stationary, its on the earth which is moving upwards.

if it was in the air, then you'd find that it doesn't bend, as gravity accelerates masses at different speeds

Ok so sorry if someone brought this up but, you have a piece of paper and a steel ball at the same height. the steel ball hits first.
explain how this could happen if your FE accelerates evenly. and don't give me some nonsense about air compression without any maths to prove it. Also terminal speed.

and for you GR lovers what about the gravity time dilation?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Relativ/airtim.html

The paper-against-weight problem actually makes sense in both models (if UA affects only the Earth).  The problem they all avoid is why gravity is stronger in certain regions than others, which only makes sense if the Earth is rotating.

The paper-against-weight problem actually makes sense in both models (if UA affects only the Earth).  The problem they all avoid is why gravity is stronger in certain regions than others, which only makes sense if the Earth is rotating.

Changes in gravity also occur if the material under your feet is more or less dense. More mass, more gravity.

Quote from: Ellipsis on May 10, 2010, 06:34:28 PM

The paper-against-weight problem actually makes sense in both models (if UA affects only the Earth).  The problem they all avoid is why gravity is stronger in certain regions than others, which only makes sense if the Earth is rotating.

Changes in gravity also occur if the material under your feet is more or less dense. More mass, more gravity.

not to mention atomic clocks must be adjusted with altitude, as they're error of margin is less than the time dilation of a year.

He essentially seems to be arguing that small scale experiments can't disprove the equivalence principle, which is an entirely separate issue from being able to perform experiments  at all to determine if the earth is being accelerated by gravity or something else. So it can be done, but he is sticking to an irrelevant argument as a means of defense.

I never said it is impossible for one to perform an experiment which distinguishes between gravity and acceleration at all. I said it is impossible for one to perform an experiment which distinguishes between the two in our frame of reference, because tidal effects (variations) are too small to be noticeable in such frame of reference.

We're getting to the heart of the matter now!

Tell me more about this "something".

Unknown, but it would probably have properties which counteract with positive gravitational fields. Or, we can simply say the Earth is unique in that it does not distort the geometry of space-time.

actually there is. high speed camera. it is moving upwards if acceleration is constant.
it is gravity if acceleration increases based on the inverse square law

What?

Ok so sorry if someone brought this up but, you have a piece of paper and a steel ball at the same height. the steel ball hits first.
explain how this could happen if your FE accelerates evenly. and don't give me some nonsense about air compression without any maths to prove it. Also terminal speed.

The force of drag causes the paper to accelerate up faster than the steel ball relative to the Earth's acceleration.

Unknown, but it would probably have properties which counteract with positive gravitational fields.

Argument without evidence.

It's strange that you argue for pages that something exists (the nature and operation of mass in a spacetime universe) and then wish it all away in an instant. Someones time is being wasted. Who do I bill?

Or, we can simply say the Earth is unique in that it does not distort the geometry of space-time.

Special case pleading without reason.

So we're back around to this argument:

"Something is negating the mass contained in the planet Earth because it must in order for my model to work"

This claim has exactly no evidence on its side, yet you continue to proclaim it as if you are absolutely sure that it is 100% true. That seems much more like religious faith than scientific fact.

Quote from: James on May 10, 2010, 05:18:37 PM

I can see where you are going wrong, I think you will find it surprisingly simple. You have not factored in expansion, which counteracts compression. There are a number of expanding factors involved when we are discussing the Earth, these include heat from within the Earth itself (heat causes particles to move faster, with a tendency to force them apart). This is why certain objects explode in microwave ovens). Another thing which expands the surface of the Earth is rainfall. As rain falls on as particular area of ground, the ground will become saturated and swell slightly. The Earth is sustained in perpetuity through balances such as these.

Wow, just wow. One last time then I'm out.

Point A has a measured acceleration of we'll say 9.81 m/s^2, and point B has a measured acceleration of 9.79 m/s^2. These values are shown to be constant over time, they do not change. If those points start out near the same spot, and accelerate upwards at the values above, point A will quickly acquire a larger velocity than the other, and will move upwards with an ever increasing lead over point B, hence point A would not stay on the surface of the flat Earth for long, it would shoot off into space, and point B would sink into the ground. This is not happening, or we would see mountain ranges and chasms appearing in a matter of seconds.

In the real Earth, we don't measure any movement of those points relative to the rest of the ground, so no compression or expansion is happening. Therefore the Earth is not being accelerated upwards by some unseen UA, gravitational force is the only other option.

If you don't understand that, there's nothing else I can do for you.

If the Earth expands, does it not expand towards you? If an accelerating object expands, its acceleration in relation to you increases for the time it is expanding.

Quote from: General Disarray on May 10, 2010, 05:28:47 PM

Quote from: James on May 10, 2010, 05:18:37 PM

I can see where you are going wrong, I think you will find it surprisingly simple. You have not factored in expansion, which counteracts compression. There are a number of expanding factors involved when we are discussing the Earth, these include heat from within the Earth itself (heat causes particles to move faster, with a tendency to force them apart). This is why certain objects explode in microwave ovens). Another thing which expands the surface of the Earth is rainfall. As rain falls on as particular area of ground, the ground will become saturated and swell slightly. The Earth is sustained in perpetuity through balances such as these.

Wow, just wow. One last time then I'm out.

Point A has a measured acceleration of we'll say 9.81 m/s^2, and point B has a measured acceleration of 9.79 m/s^2. These values are shown to be constant over time, they do not change. If those points start out near the same spot, and accelerate upwards at the values above, point A will quickly acquire a larger velocity than the other, and will move upwards with an ever increasing lead over point B, hence point A would not stay on the surface of the flat Earth for long, it would shoot off into space, and point B would sink into the ground. This is not happening, or we would see mountain ranges and chasms appearing in a matter of seconds.

In the real Earth, we don't measure any movement of those points relative to the rest of the ground, so no compression or expansion is happening. Therefore the Earth is not being accelerated upwards by some unseen UA, gravitational force is the only other option.

If you don't understand that, there's nothing else I can do for you.

If the Earth expands, does it not expand towards you? If an accelerating object expands, its acceleration in relation to you increases for the time it is expanding.

That does not make any sense, nor does it have any relevance to the argument I have been presenting to you for a couple pages now. Educate yourself on what acceleration is, and we can continue the discussion.

Quote from: General Disarray on May 10, 2010, 05:28:47 PM

Quote from: James on May 10, 2010, 05:18:37 PM

I can see where you are going wrong, I think you will find it surprisingly simple. You have not factored in expansion, which counteracts compression. There are a number of expanding factors involved when we are discussing the Earth, these include heat from within the Earth itself (heat causes particles to move faster, with a tendency to force them apart). This is why certain objects explode in microwave ovens). Another thing which expands the surface of the Earth is rainfall. As rain falls on as particular area of ground, the ground will become saturated and swell slightly. The Earth is sustained in perpetuity through balances such as these.

Wow, just wow. One last time then I'm out.

Point A has a measured acceleration of we'll say 9.81 m/s^2, and point B has a measured acceleration of 9.79 m/s^2. These values are shown to be constant over time, they do not change. If those points start out near the same spot, and accelerate upwards at the values above, point A will quickly acquire a larger velocity than the other, and will move upwards with an ever increasing lead over point B, hence point A would not stay on the surface of the flat Earth for long, it would shoot off into space, and point B would sink into the ground. This is not happening, or we would see mountain ranges and chasms appearing in a matter of seconds.

In the real Earth, we don't measure any movement of those points relative to the rest of the ground, so no compression or expansion is happening. Therefore the Earth is not being accelerated upwards by some unseen UA, gravitational force is the only other option.

If you don't understand that, there's nothing else I can do for you.

If the Earth expands, does it not expand towards you? If an accelerating object expands, its acceleration in relation to you increases for the time it is expanding.

I understand what you're saying.  Unfortunately you've got a few points wrong.

1. An object doesn't have to expand towards you.  It will expand into the area of least resistance. 

2. The amount of expansion required to compensate for a difference in acceleration and thus distance would be astronomical.  Let's do the math shall we?  An acceleration difference of .02 m/s^2 after 1 year would be 9,945,192,960,000 meters of distance between the two objects.  Are you going to tell me that the Earth is expanding it's mass in various areas that much over the course of 1 year?

Call me a noob (this IS the general Q&A), but explain to me why it's not the case that *everything* is moving due to UA.  For example, when you pour milk, the milk should behave as if it was in zero gravity, because UA is in fact acting upon the milk, as well as everything around it.  Is UA fickle and selective?

Call me a noob (this IS the general Q&A), but explain to me why it's not the case that *everything* is moving due to UA.  For example, when you pour milk, the milk should behave as if it was in zero gravity, because UA is in fact acting upon the milk, as well as everything around it.  Is UA fickle and selective?

When you start pouring the milk,it stops be accelerated(as the earth was,which makes you accelerate,and the glass accelerate) than as the earth goes up,the glass meets the milk.

Quote from: jackofhearts on May 11, 2010, 06:59:04 PM

Call me a noob (this IS the general Q&A), but explain to me why it's not the case that *everything* is moving due to UA.  For example, when you pour milk, the milk should behave as if it was in zero gravity, because UA is in fact acting upon the milk, as well as everything around it.  Is UA fickle and selective?

When you start pouring the milk,it stops be accelerated(as the earth was,which makes you accelerate,and the glass accelerate) than as the earth goes up,the glass meets the milk.

But *why* does it stop accelerating?  I can't think of a logical explanation for this.  If I'm accelerating, and the Earth is accelerating, and the glass is accelerating, why isn't the milk?

Call me a noob (this IS the general Q&A), but explain to me why it's not the case that *everything* is moving due to UA.  For example, when you pour milk, the milk should behave as if it was in zero gravity, because UA is in fact acting upon the milk, as well as everything around it.  Is UA fickle and selective?

Basically... yes.
It will only accelerate things directly in contact with the ground.  Basically, it's like someone is pushing on the Crust of the Earth.  However, they have to then explain why planets, stars, the moon, the sun, and all sorts of space objects stay the same distance from the Earth, they have to explain why the Atmosphere hasn't been pushed away yet, ect....  

Flat Earth requires a lot of "Well it wouldn't if...."

Sometimes I wonder why I spend my time here.  I like to think I'm truly changing the views of the uneducated *cough*, but then I realize that that'll never happen.  I guess it's a good self-control exercise.  The longer I go without totally trolling & flaming, the better.

Sometimes I wonder why I spend my time here.  I like to think I'm truly changing the views of the uneducated *cough*, but then I realize that that'll never happen.  I guess it's a good self-control exercise.  The longer I go without totally trolling & flaming, the better.

Considering there are about... 2, maybe 3 actual FEers here while the rest are either REers, Trolls, or assortments thereof, you might as well just start trolling now. 

Quote from: The Question1 on May 11, 2010, 07:03:16 PM

Quote from: jackofhearts on May 11, 2010, 06:59:04 PM

Call me a noob (this IS the general Q&A), but explain to me why it's not the case that *everything* is moving due to UA.  For example, when you pour milk, the milk should behave as if it was in zero gravity, because UA is in fact acting upon the milk, as well as everything around it.  Is UA fickle and selective?

When you start pouring the milk,it stops be accelerated(as the earth was,which makes you accelerate,and the glass accelerate) than as the earth goes up,the glass meets the milk.

But *why* does it stop accelerating?  I can't think of a logical explanation for this.  If I'm accelerating, and the Earth is accelerating, and the glass is accelerating, why isn't the milk?

Because the earth is the only thing going up.its just that you are connected to the container and milk.Thus when the milk lets go,it is no longer affected by the acceleration(as it technically isn't covered under UA to begin with.)

Sometimes I wonder why I spend my time here.  I like to think I'm truly changing the views of the uneducated *cough*, but then I realize that that'll never happen.  I guess it's a good self-control exercise.  The longer I go without totally trolling & flaming, the better.

I'm just here because it's good practice to apply the physics principles I learned in college. To me this is just an interesting thought experiment. And I enjoy proving people wrong, even if they don't accept it.