Gravity

  • 120 Replies
  • 25651 Views
*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Gravity
« Reply #90 on: June 01, 2012, 11:16:02 PM »
Jroa, you cannot use a sky diving simulator to argue that jumping from a plane does not mean you are falling to Earth. I use wave simulators to practice my surfing a great deal, but when I am on an actual wave I know that I am moving forward, just the same as when a person is skydiving they know they are falling down and not floating in mid air like they would in a simulator.
 

The simulator was just an example to show that the same effects are seen if the air is moving past you or if you are moving through the air.  If we were to blue screen the background and replace the simulator with sky, would the videos of the simulator not look identical to actual skydiving?  The only difference really is that the people do not have the sensation of the Earth coming towards them.  However, I still maintain that you can not feel speed, only changes in speed.

I once again do not doubt your intellect, I just would like to know why a person falling at 90 MPH towards an Earth moving towards that diver at whatever velocity (I keep hearing not the speed of light, but then some people say Earth is moving at nearly the speed of light so I am confused) how can that person be in mid air for minutes, not just a few, but around 10-15 minutes before needing to deploy their parachute.

Once again, I will remind you that speed is relative.  If you are in a train going 60 mph, and you start walking towards the front of the train at 2 mph, your net speed is 62 mph.  However, relative to your surroundings, you are only moving 2 mph.  If the Earth is traveling upwards at, say, 1,000,000 miles per hour (just for this example), and you were moving in the same direction at 999,910 mph, then you and the Earth would appear to be converging at 90 mph.  I don't understand what you find so hard to believe about this.

It just seems that the math is stacked against UA. I am not a math major or anything and I am only taking online classes while still an enlisted in the military, but I do have common sense and a lot of friends who sky dive. Their first hand account and storys show me that they are falling towards Earth. not Earth coming towards them.

I do not see where UA comes into this.  It may possibly be the force that is accelerating the Earth, but it is just a theory.  We were discussing gravity and gravity like effects.

Please do not take me as hostile, I really do want to know more and take every bit of criticism as a positive means to learning.  I just do not observe or hear from first hand account what you are telling me about Earth accelerating.

I am not taking anything to be hostile.  I am just trying to explain a little physics to you.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Gravity
« Reply #91 on: June 01, 2012, 11:18:19 PM »
Jroa, you cannot use a sky diving simulator to argue that jumping from a plane does not mean you are falling to Earth. I use wave simulators to practice my surfing a great deal, but when I am on an actual wave I know that I am moving forward, just the same as when a person is skydiving they know they are falling down and not floating in mid air like they would in a simulator.

You know you're on a simulator because you don't feel the same external effects that you feel when you're actually on a wave, like the wind rushing into you.  Do you really not see how this also applies to skydiving?

Quote
I once again do not doubt your intellect, I just would like to know why a person falling at 90 MPH towards an Earth moving towards that diver at whatever velocity (I keep hearing not the speed of light, but then some people say Earth is moving at nearly the speed of light so I am confused) how can that person be in mid air for minutes, not just a few, but around 10-15 minutes before needing to deploy their parachute.

From our frame of reference, the Earth is not moving at near the speed of light.  All that we are able to experience is the Earth's rate of acceleration.  That acceleration matches the force of gravity in the RE model; the two are indistinguishable locally.  I urge you one final time to actually follow the link markjo provided you, or do some research into the equivalence principle yourself, or something.  We did not invent this concept, Einstein did.

Quote
It just seems that the math is stacked against UA. I am not a math major or anything and I am only taking online classes while still an enlisted in the military, but I do have common sense and a lot of friends who sky dive. Their first hand account and storys show me that they are falling towards Earth. not Earth coming towards them.

If you dispute the math, you dispute Einstein.  That's fine; there's nothing wrong with challenging the ability of a far greater intellect than your own.  But if you refuse to even take the time to learn the concepts, as you are doing here, how can you possibly make such a claim?

Quote
Please do not take me as hostile, I really do want to know more and take every bit of criticism as a positive means to learning.  I just do not observe or hear from first hand account what you are telling me about Earth accelerating.

Welp, take it up with Einstein.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Gravity
« Reply #92 on: June 02, 2012, 12:28:40 AM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle

The velocity of the Earth is irrelevant. Acceleration and gravity (if such a thing existed) would be functionally indistinguishable between each other.

?

BoatswainsMate

  • 675
  • You just been Tom Bishop'ed
Re: Gravity
« Reply #93 on: June 02, 2012, 01:42:03 AM »
I have read the article that he linked, I am not exactly understanding it ( I figured I would not sense I really do not know anything about relativity and such) my claim is just that I, as a person having jumped off of many bridges and cliffs, do not remember feeling a sensation of floating or anything close to that matter, but a feeling of falling towards the Earth and not the Earth meeting me at the waters edge except that I was the one that came to the edge..

I cannot bring forth any mathematical arguments just my observation and my first hand experience. Maybe I am wrong and maybe I am right, who knows, just what I feel as I dive off of a cliff. My average jumps are only around 50 feet and sometimes more if I am wearing shoes (jumping higher then 50 feet with no shoes really hurts your feet even if you land with toes pointing down) so to me I have not felt a sensation of floating, just a sense of falling as my body goes down towards the water.

I thank you all for your explanations and I will take them into account. I just am using my powers of observation and gut feelings. I find those to be more powerful then any math.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2012, 02:10:42 AM by BoatswainsMate »

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Gravity
« Reply #94 on: June 02, 2012, 11:01:38 AM »
Your feeling of falling comes from external factors.  Mainly the air rushing past you and seeing the ground coming towards you.  That coupled with the knowledge that you just jumped off a bridge or cliff and the change in acceleration and you have the feeling of falling.

With out the external factors, you would have a feeling of floating instead of falling.  Here is a quote from George M. Pantalos commenting on his experience in the Zero-Gravity Plane, otherwise known as the Vomit Comet. 

Quote
Weightlessness is not like endlessly falling, although in reality, that is what it is. Nor is it like a roller coaster, although being in an airplane flying the path of a roller coaster is one way to create weightlessness for about 20 seconds at a time.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-do-people-feel-in-a

?

Paint_Box

  • 19
  • Be grateful for everything.
Re: Gravity
« Reply #95 on: June 04, 2012, 10:58:51 PM »
Gravity is definitely real, and it's proof that the earth is flat. How so, you ask? It's simple. If the earth were round, then there would only be one spot we'd be able to stand without falling off. I've tried standing on an exercise ball, it doesn't work.

?

BoatswainsMate

  • 675
  • You just been Tom Bishop'ed
Re: Gravity
« Reply #96 on: June 05, 2012, 03:46:03 AM »
Gravity is definitely real, and it's proof that the earth is flat. How so, you ask? It's simple. If the earth were round, then there would only be one spot we'd be able to stand without falling off. I've tried standing on an exercise ball, it doesn't work.

I cannot tell if you are serious...

?

Paint_Box

  • 19
  • Be grateful for everything.
Re: Gravity
« Reply #97 on: June 05, 2012, 01:42:46 PM »
Gravity is definitely real, and it's proof that the earth is flat. How so, you ask? It's simple. If the earth were round, then there would only be one spot we'd be able to stand without falling off. I've tried standing on an exercise ball, it doesn't work.

I cannot tell if you are serious...
Of course I am. It's a really simple empirical observation.

?

BoatswainsMate

  • 675
  • You just been Tom Bishop'ed
Re: Gravity
« Reply #98 on: June 05, 2012, 01:57:59 PM »
So.. you claim gravity exists yet you do not understand how it works?

I will start you off, a ball that a human can stand on would have just about zero gravitational effect.

?

Paint_Box

  • 19
  • Be grateful for everything.
Re: Gravity
« Reply #99 on: June 05, 2012, 02:45:53 PM »
So.. you claim gravity exists yet you do not understand how it works?

I will start you off, a ball that a human can stand on would have just about zero gravitational effect.
I don't need to understand, because it's all a lie created by government scientists.

?

BoatswainsMate

  • 675
  • You just been Tom Bishop'ed
Re: Gravity
« Reply #100 on: June 05, 2012, 04:14:52 PM »
Yes! those damn scientists with their PHD's and phony logic! how dare they hypothesize and conduct experiments to prove their points! damn you scientists you screw over FE in every corner!

How dare they...   


?

Paint_Box

  • 19
  • Be grateful for everything.
Re: Gravity
« Reply #101 on: June 05, 2012, 09:37:01 PM »
Yes! those damn scientists with their PHD's and phony logic! how dare they hypothesize and conduct experiments to prove their points! damn you scientists you screw over FE in every corner!

How dare they...   
I know, right? And they honestly expect people to believe their propaganda.

Re: Gravity
« Reply #102 on: June 06, 2012, 05:16:17 AM »
If I were to bungie off of a bridge why do I feel as if I am falling towards Earth and not floating in the air waiting for Earth to come to me? Why do I suddenly stop and spring back from the resistance of the bungie line if Earth is catching up to me?

Because you need to remember that while the earth is accelerating towards you at 9.8m/s2, the bridge that your bungie cord is tied to is accelerating away from you at 9.8m/s2

You need to realize that this has been discussed to death here.  Unfortunately, the FE'ers do have Einstein on their side for this one.  His equivalence principle clearly states that (universal) acceleration is locally indistinguishable from gravity and there is no test that can tell the difference.  See the elevator/rocket thought experiment for more detail.

You ignore the word in bold when it comes to variation in G in different places, don't you? That's a test that can tell the difference. How inconvenient for you.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Gravity
« Reply #103 on: June 06, 2012, 05:48:41 AM »
If I were to bungie off of a bridge why do I feel as if I am falling towards Earth and not floating in the air waiting for Earth to come to me? Why do I suddenly stop and spring back from the resistance of the bungie line if Earth is catching up to me?

Because you need to remember that while the earth is accelerating towards you at 9.8m/s2, the bridge that your bungie cord is tied to is accelerating away from you at 9.8m/s2

You need to realize that this has been discussed to death here.  Unfortunately, the FE'ers do have Einstein on their side for this one.  His equivalence principle clearly states that (universal) acceleration is locally indistinguishable from gravity and there is no test that can tell the difference.  See the elevator/rocket thought experiment for more detail.

You ignore the word in bold when it comes to variation in G in different places, don't you? That's a test that can tell the difference. How inconvenient for you.

Actually no, he doesn't... he's a REer.  Luckily the supposed variations in G have nothing to do with the question that was asked.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: Gravity
« Reply #104 on: June 07, 2012, 10:04:31 PM »
Just guessing this is where I should put this question as it is gravity based if the disc is always going up and causing a downward force would this force not be greater on smaller object not larger objects as re gravity seems to demonstrate what part of the physics am I missing

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Gravity
« Reply #105 on: June 08, 2012, 11:06:26 AM »
Just guessing this is where I should put this question as it is gravity based if the disc is always going up and causing a downward force would this force not be greater on smaller object not larger objects as re gravity seems to demonstrate what part of the physics am I missing

Inertia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Paint_Box

  • 19
  • Be grateful for everything.
Re: Gravity
« Reply #106 on: June 08, 2012, 02:09:06 PM »
Just guessing this is where I should put this question as it is gravity based if the disc is always going up and causing a downward force would this force not be greater on smaller object not larger objects as re gravity seems to demonstrate what part of the physics am I missing
Uh, no. Force equals mass times acceleration. Gravity is an acceleration, not a force. Since acceleration due to gravity is constant for all objects in the same general area, force is directly related to mass. In layman's terms, the more mass an object has, the higher the gravitational force.

The same applies for a flat Earth accelerating upwards.

Re: Gravity
« Reply #107 on: June 08, 2012, 02:49:33 PM »
Thanx I do understand how gravity works I just misunderstood how fe looked at it

Re: Gravity
« Reply #108 on: September 12, 2012, 05:07:32 AM »
Has anybody thought about momentum?

Say I fall off a chair that's 1 metre high and I weigh 50kg.

With Gravity, I hit the Earth with a momentum of p = mv = 50 x 9.8 = 490 Ns
and the Earth moves down a very slight amount (insignificant amount).

With UA, the Earth hits me with a momentum of p = mv = 5.9742 × 10^24   x 9.8 = 5.8547160000000000000000000 Ns
and as momentum is always conserved I then fly upwards with a velocity of v = p/m = 5.85x10^25 / 50 = 1170943200000000000000000 ms^-1

Which is not what happens.... explain? :)

Excuse me, has anybody answered Varaug's question? Is it the same thing me hitting a stationary train at 10mph (running) and the same train hitting me at that speed while I am stationary? Does a 5lb stone that hits your leg at 20mph feel the same as a 5oz one? Not sure...
« Last Edit: September 12, 2012, 05:16:57 AM by spiccio »

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8738
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Gravity
« Reply #109 on: September 12, 2012, 12:31:37 PM »
If the earth were a globe, it would be just as easy to say the earth is hitting you as that you are hitting the earth. There is no privileged frame of reference.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

Re: Gravity
« Reply #110 on: September 12, 2012, 02:14:20 PM »
Excuse me, has anybody answered Varaug's question? Is it the same thing me hitting a stationary train at 10mph (running) and the same train hitting me at that speed while I am stationary? Does a 5lb stone that hits your leg at 20mph feel the same as a 5oz one? Not sure...

The comparison doesn't work because the train's velocity (therefore momentum) is relative to yours. If you were already being pushed by the train then jumped out and let it hit you the momentum would not be the same. Please read more here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Dependence_on_reference_frame

Re: Gravity
« Reply #111 on: September 13, 2012, 12:03:11 AM »
The comparison doesn't work because the train's velocity (therefore momentum) is relative to yours. If you were already being pushed by the train then jumped out and let it hit you the momentum would not be the same. Please read more here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Dependence_on_reference_frame

You missed my point, but maybe my example wasn't good. How do you answer to Varaug's question?

Re: Gravity
« Reply #112 on: September 13, 2012, 12:05:14 AM »
If the earth were a globe, it would be just as easy to say the earth is hitting you as that you are hitting the earth. There is no privileged frame of reference.

Really? Can you prove Varaug's reasoning is wrong?

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Gravity
« Reply #113 on: September 13, 2012, 12:09:03 AM »
If the earth were a globe, it would be just as easy to say the earth is hitting you as that you are hitting the earth. There is no privileged frame of reference.

Really? Can you prove Varaug's reasoning is wrong?

Please read over the rest of the thread and keep up with the current discussion. Bothering posters on page six with a question asked on page one is rather silly, don't you think?

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Gravity
« Reply #114 on: September 13, 2012, 10:43:06 PM »
Excuse me, has anybody answered Varaug's question? Is it the same thing me hitting a stationary train at 10mph (running) and the same train hitting me at that speed while I am stationary? Does a 5lb stone that hits your leg at 20mph feel the same as a 5oz one? Not sure...

The comparison doesn't work because the train's velocity (therefore momentum) is relative to yours. If you were already being pushed by the train then jumped out and let it hit you the momentum would not be the same. Please read more here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Dependence_on_reference_frame

We are not talking about inertial impact.  We are talking about acceleration.   The physics are very different.

Re: Gravity
« Reply #115 on: September 13, 2012, 11:25:35 PM »
If the earth were a globe, it would be just as easy to say the earth is hitting you as that you are hitting the earth. There is no privileged frame of reference.

Really? Can you prove Varaug's reasoning is wrong?

Please read over the rest of the thread and keep up with the current discussion. Bothering posters on page six with a question asked on page one is rather silly, don't you think?

Not when it is relative to the discussion and remains unanswered by the FES. Comments like these appear too frequently on these boards, mostly from you sir, when the FES appears to not have any other intelligent response
One should not twist facts to suit theories, but instead twist theories to suit facts. This is the basis of every scientific method

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8738
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Gravity
« Reply #116 on: September 14, 2012, 12:36:58 AM »
If the earth were a globe, it would be just as easy to say the earth is hitting you as that you are hitting the earth. There is no privileged frame of reference.

Really? Can you prove Varaug's reasoning is wrong?

Please read over the rest of the thread and keep up with the current discussion. Bothering posters on page six with a question asked on page one is rather silly, don't you think?

Not when it is relative to the discussion and remains unanswered by the FES. Comments like these appear too frequently on these boards, mostly from you sir, when the FES appears to not have any other intelligent response

It's not unanswered. I answered it. You don't understand the answer that is completely different.



"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

Re: Gravity
« Reply #117 on: September 14, 2012, 08:30:18 AM »
We are not talking about inertial impact.  We are talking about acceleration.   The physics are very different.

True; I noticed that he was using acceleration instead of velocity in the momentum equations, of course invalidating the conclusion. But I did want to point out that proper momentum calculations are also relative.

Re: Gravity
« Reply #118 on: September 14, 2012, 02:26:33 PM »
If the earth were a globe, it would be just as easy to say the earth is hitting you as that you are hitting the earth. There is no privileged frame of reference.

Really? Can you prove Varaug's reasoning is wrong?

Please read over the rest of the thread and keep up with the current discussion. Bothering posters on page six with a question asked on page one is rather silly, don't you think?

Not when it is relative to the discussion and remains unanswered by the FES. Comments like these appear too frequently on these boards, mostly from you sir, when the FES appears to not have any other intelligent response

Give it time...developing new theories takes time.
Because everything relates to niggarious'therum

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8738
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Gravity
« Reply #119 on: September 14, 2012, 02:34:54 PM »
Momentum isn't a new theory. The question arose only because Varaug assigned arbitrary frames of references (which in itself is fine), and then completely misunderstood/misapplied his results.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."