Proof the Earth is not accelerating

Even if we did consider that you do find a pilot, air pressure alone would not generate the acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2 that you would experience while maintaining a constant altitude.

Correct, that would be caused by UA. Nolhekh just worded his post strangely.

One failed part of UA is that is cannot explain why we experience gravity in airplanes. I can testify to this fact having flown in many airplanes. The only reason why anyone would experience gravity in a UA universe would be due to the surface of the Earth pushing on them, accelerating them upwards. Airplanes in flight are not on the surface of the Earth. They maintain a particular altitude without applying an upward force to simulate gravity. This can be demonstrated by the fact that commercial airliners do not have engines that point down. They fly using lift generated from forward thrust which generates enough air pressure against the wings to cancel out the effects of gravity. Thus is UA was true, then we would expect to be weightless in an airplane that maintains a constant altitude. This concept is reinforced by the fact that weightlessness can only be generated in an airplane that follows a parabolic path through the air such as the one the ZeroG planes follow.

Even if we did consider that you do find a pilot, air pressure alone would not generate the acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2 that you would experience while maintaining a constant altitude. You will begin to lose altitude. So you have to explain those mechanics as well.

Wow this statement is completely ignorant of actual physics.

Equivalence principle. Learn it.

Equivalence principle. Learn it.

Yeah I am aware of the principle. But what I was about to lead up to is this... If the Earth was flat, has an edge, and is accelerating upward according to UA, then what is holding the atmosphere steady? Surely you can't expect us to believe that this alleged ice barrier keeps all of the air in. The air would flow out and around the edge of the Earth. So you would have to explain the mechanics of UA that accelerates the airplane upward while maintaining the air pressure. Which is not the same thing as gravity vs UA. There is a method to my madness lol.

Quote from: Nolhekh on October 16, 2011, 01:46:31 PM

Lift generated by air pressure from air which would be accelerating upwards because of the earth.

Wow this statement is completely ignorant of actual physics. You are claiming that this air pressure, caused by the Earth accelerating upward, generates the lift that keeps the airplane in the air? Ok... I pose an experiment that you can perform yourself to test this hypothesis. I want you to get in an airplane (take as many FErs as you can fit inside the craft) and, once you reach 10,000 ft, cut the engines off. You are not allowed to turn the engines on again. You are only allowed to test your statement regarding lift due to this accelerated air pressure cause by the Earth. My RE theory predicts that you have a very slim chance of posting the results of the experiment unless you turn the engines on and land safely.

Why suggest an experiment if you know it can't be done?

Anyway, to explain my point, on the ground, UA keeps the plane on the ground, just like gravity. UA also keeps the air around it on the ground as well.  Relative to the plane, the air is not moving up or down.  The plane builds up speed, and the lift on the wing builds up a force greater than 1g, allowing the plane to start accelerating upwards faster than the earth itself, and it takes off.

To compare with RET.  Gravity keeps the plane on the ground.  Gravity also keeps the air around it on the ground as well.  Relative to the plane, the air is not moving up or down.  The plane builds up speed, and the lift on the wing builds up a force greater than 1g, allowing the plane to overcome the force of gravity, and start accelerating upwards, and it takes off.

Same result

Quote from: EllipsoidEarthSupporter on October 16, 2011, 04:07:10 PM

Quote from: Nolhekh on October 16, 2011, 01:46:31 PM

Lift generated by air pressure from air which would be accelerating upwards because of the earth.

Wow this statement is completely ignorant of actual physics. You are claiming that this air pressure, caused by the Earth accelerating upward, generates the lift that keeps the airplane in the air? Ok... I pose an experiment that you can perform yourself to test this hypothesis. I want you to get in an airplane (take as many FErs as you can fit inside the craft) and, once you reach 10,000 ft, cut the engines off. You are not allowed to turn the engines on again. You are only allowed to test your statement regarding lift due to this accelerated air pressure cause by the Earth. My RE theory predicts that you have a very slim chance of posting the results of the experiment unless you turn the engines on and land safely.

Why suggest an experiment if you know it can't be done?

Anyway, to explain my point, on the ground, UA keeps the plane on the ground, just like gravity. UA also keeps the air around it on the ground as well.  Relative to the plane, the air is not moving up or down.  The plane builds up speed, and the lift on the wing builds up a force greater than 1g, allowing the plane to start accelerating upwards faster than the earth itself, and it takes off.

To compare with RET.  Gravity keeps the plane on the ground.  Gravity also keeps the air around it on the ground as well.  Relative to the plane, the air is not moving up or down.  The plane builds up speed, and the lift on the wing builds up a force greater than 1g, allowing the plane to overcome the force of gravity, and start accelerating upwards, and it takes off.

Same result

I would like to once again praise your recent efforts, Brother Nolhekh. You have the makings of a fine Zetetic scientist.

Why suggest an experiment if you know it can't be done?

Why not? FErs suggest ideas that can't be tested and act like it's a theory.

Anyway, to explain my point, on the ground, UA keeps the plane on the ground, just like gravity. UA also keeps the air around it on the ground as well.  Relative to the plane, the air is not moving up or down.  The plane builds up speed, and the lift on the wing builds up a force greater than 1g, allowing the plane to start accelerating upwards faster than the earth itself, and it takes off.

To compare with RET.  Gravity keeps the plane on the ground.  Gravity also keeps the air around it on the ground as well.  Relative to the plane, the air is not moving up or down.  The plane builds up speed, and the lift on the wing builds up a force greater than 1g, allowing the plane to overcome the force of gravity, and start accelerating upwards, and it takes off.

Same result

Now here is the part where FE has failed miserably... Also you ignored my statements of truth....

If the Earth was flat, has an edge, and is accelerating upward according to UA, then what is holding the atmosphere steady? Surely you can't expect us to believe that this alleged ice barrier keeps all of the air in. The air would flow out and around the edge of the Earth. So you would have to explain the mechanics of UA that accelerates the airplane upward while maintaining the air pressure. Which is not the same thing as gravity vs UA.

Planes fly higher than any ice barrier could be. FErs failed UA would mean that there would be no atmosphere above the ice barrier to keep the plane in the air due to all of that air having flowed over the edge of the Earth. RE does not have that problem. FErs can continue to ignore my statement if they would like. It will just show that FE fails and RE does not.

I'm not a flat earther, so why are you suggesting I do this?

We're talking about the physics behind a hypothetical accelerating earth.  Whether the ice wall exists or it's a mountainous barrier, or the earth is infinite or not is irrelevant.  UA assumes an accelerating earth and a contained atmosphere.  Given this set of conditions, UA is locally indistinguishable from gravity.  Any talk of what is containing said atmosphere is shifting the topic away possibly to hide the fact that you've lost the argument.

Also you say "statements of truth" and take an irrelevant quote that fails to take into considerations all possibilities.

The relevancy of Earth having an edge does impact UA whether you want to accept it or not. The air would flow over the edge which is the difference between UA vs. gravity. So the only other possible choice for the FErs is an infinite Earth which is even less likely. Just because you want to ignore the affects of an earth with an edge under UA, is of no consequence to me. You may not be a FEr but you use nearly the same logic.

The existence of an edge to hold in atmosphere is a variable that is irrelevent to the accelerating earth thought experiment, and must be eliminated by considering an accelerating earth that does have something to hold the air in.  Whatever that is is irrelevant.

The existence of an edge to hold in atmosphere is a variable that is irrelevent to the accelerating earth thought experiment, and must be eliminated by considering an accelerating earth that does have something to hold the air in.  Whatever that is is irrelevant.

Really? Here we go again down the road of speculation and conspiracy. Please provide evidence of this something that must be holding the air in, otherwise you are admitting that you do not know and cannot explain it. Isn't this suppose to be a debate? You try so hard to dismiss my arguments in hopes of eliminating a huge flaw with the idea of a FE which lowers this from a debate to a one sided discussion where things are the way they are just because you say it must be. We do not have to consider this failed thought experiment by acknowledging a mythical structure which holds the air in. To do so is unscientific and ignorant of basic physics which any zetetic believer can confirm. You may not be a believer in the FE, but your debating skills have failed to dismiss my statements and shows your lack of commitment in considering the FE thought experiment as you so call it.

Aetheric Wind holds the Air in.

That, or Fairies with boots.

Quote from: Nolhekh on October 17, 2011, 09:45:02 AM

The existence of an edge to hold in atmosphere is a variable that is irrelevent to the accelerating earth thought experiment, and must be eliminated by considering an accelerating earth that does have something to hold the air in.  Whatever that is is irrelevant.

Really? Here we go again down the road of speculation and conspiracy. Please provide evidence of this something that must be holding the air in, otherwise you are admitting that you do not know and cannot explain it. Isn't this suppose to be a debate? You try so hard to dismiss my arguments in hopes of eliminating a huge flaw with the idea of a FE which lowers this from a debate to a one sided discussion where things are the way they are just because you say it must be. We do not have to consider this failed thought experiment by acknowledging a mythical structure which holds the air in. To do so is unscientific and ignorant of basic physics which any zetetic believer can confirm. You may not be a believer in the FE, but your debating skills have failed to dismiss my statements and shows your lack of commitment in considering the FE thought experiment as you so call it.

Your original post in this thread specifically attacked the physics involving airplanes flying, and nowhere did you bring up lack of something to hold in the atmosphere as a reason an accelerating earth can't support flying aircraft.  I see talk of upwards forces simulating gravity, lift generated from thrust generating air pressure, weightlessness, but nothing about the flawed physics behind giant walls.

One failed part of UA is that is cannot explain why we experience gravity in airplanes. I can testify to this fact having flown in many airplanes. The only reason why anyone would experience gravity in a UA universe would be due to the surface of the Earth pushing on them, accelerating them upwards. Airplanes in flight are not on the surface of the Earth. They maintain a particular altitude without applying an upward force to simulate gravity. This can be demonstrated by the fact that commercial airliners do not have engines that point down. They fly using lift generated from forward thrust which generates enough air pressure against the wings to cancel out the effects of gravity. Thus is UA was true, then we would expect to be weightless in an airplane that maintains a constant altitude. This concept is reinforced by the fact that weightlessness can only be generated in an airplane that follows a parabolic path through the air such as the one the ZeroG planes follow.

Clearly the concept of a hypothetical scenario isn't completely lost on you, yet you somehow feel the need to alter your original argument.  Now you talk as if the physics behind an upward accelerating atmosphere can't be considered without taking into account the geography keeping the atmosphere from falling off, even though that's what you were doing in your original post.

In discussing the physics of flight, the containment of the atmosphere is irrelevant as it's really a separate topic.  Agreed, the physics behind a giant wall is shaky, but in the context of an accelerating earth with contained atmosphere, the physics behind flight is sound.

Clearly the concept of a hypothetical scenario isn't completely lost on you, yet you somehow feel the need to alter your original argument.  Now you talk as if the physics behind an upward accelerating atmosphere can't be considered without taking into account the geography keeping the atmosphere from falling off, even though that's what you were doing in your original post.

In discussing the physics of flight, the containment of the atmosphere is irrelevant as it's really a separate topic.  Agreed, the physics behind a giant wall is shaky, but in the context of an accelerating earth with contained atmosphere, the physics behind flight is sound.

I was building up to that point considering the atmosphere. I do that to make sure we are all on the same page and that we agree upon proper ideas. You can debate the previous posts successfully. You already pointed out how Nolhekh worded his post as to not be correct and we moved on. Sure an airplane within a contained atmosphere in gravity or UA will fly. But, that is not the entire picture of the FE. We must also consider what contains the atmosphere. Because the plane will not fly in the absence of an atmosphere.

I guess your buildup was confusing.  If you agree that a plane can fly in a contained accelerating atmosphere, it's a little difficult to understand why you would talk about lift, thrust and air pressure, when your real argument is that there is little evidence that there is anything holding the atmosphere in.  It's a little contemptuous and hypocritical to go into the details regarding the physics of flight, only to eventually say "But there's no evidence that anything can hold our atmosphere in so all your arguments regarding the physics of flight are for nothing."

Aetheric Wind holds the Air in.

That, or Fairies with boots.

This pretty much sums up FET.

i have been thinking lately about waves, as in sound waves ect or even light. does gravity/UA effect these at all? if a sound was made at 20,000m would it fall? is light effected ? this would create bendy light to some degree (not the way FET would want it to mind you). i cant think of anything to suggest they are.

i have been thinking lately about waves, as in sound waves ect or even light. does gravity/UA effect these at all? if a sound was made at 20,000m would it fall? is light effected ? this would create bendy light to some degree (not the way FET would want it to mind you). i cant think of anything to suggest they are.

Light would bend in either a UA or a gravity field, that's what the equivalence principle deals with. As for sound, sound waves are not really physical objects, you cannot weigh a sound wave nor can you observe one outside a medium. They are stresses within a medium that are seen as undulating pressure waves. In short, no amount of gravity or UA can bend a sound wave, however, gravity and UA CAN bend the medium it is passing through. 

Quote from: squevil on October 19, 2011, 06:12:04 AM

i have been thinking lately about waves, as in sound waves ect or even light. does gravity/UA effect these at all? if a sound was made at 20,000m would it fall? is light effected ? this would create bendy light to some degree (not the way FET would want it to mind you). i cant think of anything to suggest they are.

Light would bend in either a UA or a gravity field, that's what the equivalence principle deals with. As for sound, sound waves are not really physical objects, you cannot weigh a sound wave nor can you observe one outside a medium. They are stresses within a medium that are seen as undulating pressure waves. In short, no amount of gravity or UA can bend a sound wave, however, gravity and UA CAN bend the medium it is passing through.

come to think of it i do remeber talks about bending light due to gravity so ill sweep that aside. however the sound waves were my original thoughts. what i was thinking was surely if UA was true then we would catch sound waves from planes and they would be very loud when passing overhead. thye are loud now but if we were passing through them we would need headphones or some ear plugs. hard to really experimant with really because many things need to be taken into concideration. but something to chew on none the less