If I jump in the air why doesn't the ground move @ 1000MPH?

I don't accept inertia in any way, shape or form, no matter how it's dressed up. It simply bogus science used with fictional gravity to keep the magical science of earth and space working to how they want us to believe it works.
It's bogus, 100%

I don't accept inertia in any way, shape or form, no matter how it's dressed up. It simply bogus science used with fictional gravity to keep the magical science of earth and space working to how they want us to believe it works.
It's bogus, 100%

But if it doesn't take force to move air then there's nothing causing it to compress (except when pumping into a sealed system).

ever. It would simply move out of the way at any speed necessary.

Who to believe. Professional scientists and engineers across the world or some random bloke on an internet forum?

Quote from: ausGeoff on January 09, 2014, 12:01:32 PM

The solution to this problem depends on whether or not we consider the coefficient of friction between the floor of the bus and the kid to be zero (as he's on a skateboard).  There's be no horizontally applied external forces.

If that was theoretically the case, then the only force acting on the kid would be a vertical force due to gravity.  The kid's body would resist moving because of inertia, and therefore crash into the back of the bus at around 20 mph.

There is no such thing in reality as gravity or inertia and I swear on that. It's bogus.

There are absolutely such things in reality as gravity and inertia, and I swear on that. They're valid.

See, I can make promises and assertions too!

I don't accept inertia in any way, shape or form, no matter how it's dressed up. It simply bogus science used with fictional gravity to keep the magical science of earth and space working to how they want us to believe it works.
It's bogus, 100%

Unfortunately, it's not a very sound argument to simply claim 100 times that gravity and inertia are "bogus".  Or that you personally "guarantee" this.

One has to look at the evidence both for and against the claims of the scientists, and if the positive claims make sense to 99.999% of the scientists, then that's good enough for me.  I don't have enough education in geophysics and astrophysics to speak with absolute authority on these subjects, but I am more than capable of separating the facts from the bullshit.

Isaac Newton defined inertia as his first law in his Philosophić Naturalis Principia Mathematica published in 1687, which states:

The vis insita, or innate force of matter, is a power of resisting by which every body, as much as in it lies, endeavours to preserve its present state, whether it be of rest or of moving uniformly forward in a straight line.

Can you tell us what—specifically—you find to be incorrect with Newton's definition?  And which has been accepted unequivocally by the scientific community for nearly 400 years.
 

Quote from: Antonio on January 09, 2014, 11:45:48 AM

Experiment One:
A bus, a kid on a skateboard, placed just behind the driver, in the aisle . All doors closed.

We start with both the bus and the kid at rest, relative to the road. A starting line has been drawn on it and the kid is just above it.
Now, the bus starts, accelerating up to -say - 20 mph, when his rear end crosses the starting line.

What would be the speed of the kid just before he crashes into the rear glass of the bus, and its direction ? A rough estimate is ok.
What would be his position, relative to the starting line ?

Is the bus still accelerating after it hits 20 or holding a constant 20 mph speed as the kid hits the line?

Give the two alternatives if you want

I think this is where we all pledge to stop responding to sceptic. His nonsense has gone on long enough.

Why don't you just face up to it?  You got it wrong.  Or are you that much of an intellectual coward that you can't admit to making the occasional mistake?  If you can't, then you're not much of a debater are you?

More like a masturbator.

After reading through your comments, you sure are accusatory of Sceptimatic not adhering to the rules and yet, here YOU are, being inappropriate!

I think this is where we all pledge to stop responding to sceptic. His nonsense has gone on long enough.

Heard that before.  But you hypocrites just keep responding....   

After reading through your comments, you sure are accusatory of Sceptimatic not adhering to the rules and yet, here YOU are, being inappropriate!

Oh boy!  Talk about hypocrisy LOL.

So your logic says it's perfectly okay for your mate sceptimatic to repeatedly insult nearly every other member with opposing viewpoints, but as soon as someone dares to do the same in return, you cry foul?

If you're upset at what I've posted, I can only suggest you report me to the moderators, rather than whinging here on the forums.  But I'm betting you won't.  You don't have the courage of your convictions.

Quote from: Nolhekh on January 08, 2014, 07:31:38 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 08, 2014, 06:04:54 PM

Quote from: BJ1234 on January 08, 2014, 05:56:02 PM

So the void is created by the air moving back, and this is what pushes you back, yet when the void gets filled up, the air doesn't push you forward at all?  Why would the air be able to push you in one direction, but not in the other?

The air being pushed back, compresses against you, forcing you back and as it does so, it creates a LOWER pressure at the very front that is immediately filled all the time the bus is accelerating. As soon as the bus stops accelerating, the compressed air equalizes which you feel as the weight coming off of you.

It's much simpler, scepti.  When a bus accelerates, it pushes on you, and you feel it.  When it stops accelerating, it stops pushing you, cause you're just moving along with it.

To disprove this, all you need to do is sit on that bus with a cup of water and as it accelerates forward, tell me which way the water swills out.
Wear waterproof trousers, because it's coming at you not being pushed forward.

You see, the water is trying to stay the way it is, and if the bus accelerates forward, it pushes me into the cup of water.  The water isn't being pushed backwards.  If you move forwards, everything around you looks like it's going backwards.  It's the same with the water.  If you are pushed fowards, the water looks like it's being pushed backwards, when it's actually trying to hold steady.

Quote from: Nolhekh on January 08, 2014, 07:24:59 PM

Nah, too complicated.  The table cloth is just pulled out too quickly for the items on the cloth to react.  Think I'm getting the hang of this simple explanation stuff.  What do you think, Scepti?

In a way you are correct because it is actually the speed which is the key to anything, but it's by agitation of matter/molecules that determines pressures, which is the key to everything from wind to everything that happens on earth no matter what it is.
No fictional forces are needed like gravity and this inertia thought. It's just not required, but it's needed to make space a reality, which it's not.

The truth is, there is something that makes things accelerate towards the ground.  Whatever it is - be it the flat earth accelerating, a particle force field, or curved accelerating space-time - it exists.  (the last two just happen to make sense when applied to round earth space as well).  We know it's not caused by air pressure, because it doesn't behave the right way.  Air pressure can't act evenly over the entire mass of an object, because it can only touch the surface of an object.  This thing we call gravity - whatever it is - does affect the entire mass.  This is how we know air pressure isn't the cause of gravity.

Inertia, by the way, isn't a force.  It's matter's resistance to force.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2014, 12:03:39 PM

Quote from: ausGeoff on January 09, 2014, 12:01:32 PM

The solution to this problem depends on whether or not we consider the coefficient of friction between the floor of the bus and the kid to be zero (as he's on a skateboard).  There's be no horizontally applied external forces.

If that was theoretically the case, then the only force acting on the kid would be a vertical force due to gravity.  The kid's body would resist moving because of inertia, and therefore crash into the back of the bus at around 20 mph.

There is no such thing in reality as gravity or inertia and I swear on that. It's bogus.

There are absolutely such things in reality as gravity and inertia, and I swear on that. They're valid.

See, I can make promises and assertions too!

You already have made promises, you and your other like minded friends. It's called living on a globe, dark matter, special relativity and all the rest of it that you staunchly go with and swear to be true on the basis of being told it is.
I'm just telling you the real truth.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2014, 12:18:16 PM

I don't accept inertia in any way, shape or form, no matter how it's dressed up. It simply bogus science used with fictional gravity to keep the magical science of earth and space working to how they want us to believe it works.
It's bogus, 100%

Unfortunately, it's not a very sound argument to simply claim 100 times that gravity and inertia are "bogus".  Or that you personally "guarantee" this.

One has to look at the evidence both for and against the claims of the scientists, and if the positive claims make sense to 99.999% of the scientists, then that's good enough for me.  I don't have enough education in geophysics and astrophysics to speak with absolute authority on these subjects, but I am more than capable of separating the facts from the bullshit.

Isaac Newton defined inertia as his first law in his Philosophić Naturalis Principia Mathematica published in 1687, which states:

The vis insita, or innate force of matter, is a power of resisting by which every body, as much as in it lies, endeavours to preserve its present state, whether it be of rest or of moving uniformly forward in a straight line.

Can you tell us what—specifically—you find to be incorrect with Newton's definition?  And which has been accepted unequivocally by the scientific community for nearly 400 years.

The fact that you people rely on people like Isaac Newton and other so called pre- historic characters to try to back up your claims, should set alarm bells of in any rational thinking persons head.
At the end of the day, the world will operate as it is whether people know the truth or not. It would be nice to think that people could wake up to the fact that the scientific world has duped us with so many things that has truth and lies mixed in with misdirection and misinformation that the average person simply cannot fathom out what is real and what is not, so they go with the easiest, which is to unconditionally believe it all.
It's like jailing a child and putting them in solitary confinement. At first they become scared and confused and then they acclimatize to the situation as they grow and they trust their own little world so much that they become part of it and safe in it.
I'm the person that's just opened their cell door and I'm trying to tell the person that they are free to go, but I cannot coax them out of their safe cell. It's called institutionalised.

Hopefully one day, some people will actually take a step forward and look at the real reality and discard the box that they lived in so they can live and think outside of it.
I still hold out hope for most people but I hold out none for many on this site (global earthers) because I feel that their goal is not about thinking outside of the box, it's about rubber stamping their beliefs onto other peoples heads who come to this forum whilst making out that anyone who thinks differently is a stark raving lunatic.
Unfortunately people are extremely gullible and simply go with the crowd. The weak follow the bullies because they feel safe.
Anyone looking in to this forum who has a different opinion of things or wants to be a part of finding the real truth or have theories of their own...come in and be a part of it all and put those opinions across. Just do not allow yourself to be intimidated by those that will inevitably surround you like pack animals. Be strong and you can have the freedom to think for YOURSELF.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2014, 11:54:37 AM

Quote from: Antonio on January 09, 2014, 11:45:48 AM

Experiment One:
A bus, a kid on a skateboard, placed just behind the driver, in the aisle . All doors closed.

We start with both the bus and the kid at rest, relative to the road. A starting line has been drawn on it and the kid is just above it.
Now, the bus starts, accelerating up to -say - 20 mph, when his rear end crosses the starting line.

What would be the speed of the kid just before he crashes into the rear glass of the bus, and its direction ? A rough estimate is ok.
What would be his position, relative to the starting line ?

Is the bus still accelerating after it hits 20 or holding a constant 20 mph speed as the kid hits the line?

Give the two alternatives if you want

If the kid is on the skateboard and the bus accelerates to 20 mph as he hits the line and then the bus speed stays at that constant speed from that point, then, apart from a few wobbles of balance, the kid will move over the line a little, then move back to the line (approx).
Why does this happen?
Because the air push on his back started his motion as the bus was accelerating and compressing the air... but when it stopped accelerating...the compressed air starts to balance back up, meaning it goes back to the front to fill the very last bit of low pressure and this will be felt as a sort of kick back, basically stopping the kid in his tracks and moving him back a touch.

You can try this in a chair on wheels on an even wooden floor.
Sit on your chair , put your feet up and use your body to sort of kick you back. What you find is, you will move back a little but as you do, you will also notice that your body then kicks forward a little and puts you back, roughly to where you were.
Try it. This isn't called inertia...it's my new word...denpressure.

All you have done is used your body to compress the air behind you as you jolt yourself and that air has kicked back at you...that's all it is. It's just your density against air pressure = denpressure.

I think this is where we all pledge to stop responding to sceptic. His nonsense has gone on long enough.

WE pledge? Do you have a separate place where you all meet and decide on your next actions?
You have always been free to never look at what I type or respond to me but you refuse to take it up.
Now that you've made the effort to tell all of your friends to stop responding...make sure that you hold yourself to this. I do not expect nor want you to reply to this.
Anyone who wants to follow Sokarul...be my guest. I'll still be putting my thoughts into the forum regardless of who responds, because people view the forum and ultimately will view what I say as well as what anyone else says and that's good enough for me.

You can try this in a chair on wheels on an even wooden floor.
Sit on your chair , put your feet up and use your body to sort of kick you back. What you find is, you will move back a little but as you do, you will also notice that your body then kicks forward a little and puts you back, roughly to where you were.
Try it.

only if I contract my legs again at the end of the kick. If I keep them straight out I remain further back and don't move toward the old position.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2014, 02:03:37 AM

Quote from: Nolhekh on January 08, 2014, 07:31:38 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 08, 2014, 06:04:54 PM

Quote from: BJ1234 on January 08, 2014, 05:56:02 PM

So the void is created by the air moving back, and this is what pushes you back, yet when the void gets filled up, the air doesn't push you forward at all?  Why would the air be able to push you in one direction, but not in the other?

The air being pushed back, compresses against you, forcing you back and as it does so, it creates a LOWER pressure at the very front that is immediately filled all the time the bus is accelerating. As soon as the bus stops accelerating, the compressed air equalizes which you feel as the weight coming off of you.

It's much simpler, scepti.  When a bus accelerates, it pushes on you, and you feel it.  When it stops accelerating, it stops pushing you, cause you're just moving along with it.

To disprove this, all you need to do is sit on that bus with a cup of water and as it accelerates forward, tell me which way the water swills out.
Wear waterproof trousers, because it's coming at you not being pushed forward.

You see, the water is trying to stay the way it is, and if the bus accelerates forward, it pushes me into the cup of water.  The water isn't being pushed backwards.  If you move forwards, everything around you looks like it's going backwards.  It's the same with the water.  If you are pushed fowards, the water looks like it's being pushed backwards, when it's actually trying to hold steady.

The next time you are on a bus or some kind of transport with a table that is bolted down...pour a little bit of water onto the table before the vehicle sets off.
Now you are not touching the table and the water is simply on the table, so what you will notice as the vehicle accelerates is that the water starts to head in your direction, assuming you are facing the way the vehicle is moving.
Anything not bolted down will be PUSHED in the opposite direction to which the vehicle accelerates as long as it is heavier than air.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2014, 02:00:56 AM

Quote from: Nolhekh on January 08, 2014, 07:24:59 PM

Nah, too complicated.  The table cloth is just pulled out too quickly for the items on the cloth to react.  Think I'm getting the hang of this simple explanation stuff.  What do you think, Scepti?

In a way you are correct because it is actually the speed which is the key to anything, but it's by agitation of matter/molecules that determines pressures, which is the key to everything from wind to everything that happens on earth no matter what it is.
No fictional forces are needed like gravity and this inertia thought. It's just not required, but it's needed to make space a reality, which it's not.

The truth is, there is something that makes things accelerate towards the ground.  Whatever it is - be it the flat earth accelerating, a particle force field, or curved accelerating space-time - it exists.  (the last two just happen to make sense when applied to round earth space as well).  We know it's not caused by air pressure, because it doesn't behave the right way.  Air pressure can't act evenly over the entire mass of an object, because it can only touch the surface of an object.  This thing we call gravity - whatever it is - does affect the entire mass.  This is how we know air pressure isn't the cause of gravity.

Inertia, by the way, isn't a force.  It's matter's resistance to force.

If it isn't a force then it isn't a word. it is bogus.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 10, 2014, 04:08:14 AM

You can try this in a chair on wheels on an even wooden floor.
Sit on your chair , put your feet up and use your body to sort of kick you back. What you find is, you will move back a little but as you do, you will also notice that your body then kicks forward a little and puts you back, roughly to where you were.
Try it.

only if I contract my legs again at the end of the kick. If I keep them straight out I remain further back and don't move toward the old position.

Yes and that is called UNBALANCING that force against you. It's called cheating the force.
It's like being stood up in a wind tunnel. You get blown backwards but if you immediately lie down you lessen the pressure hitting you, making it easier to resist it.

Quote from: Spank86 on January 10, 2014, 04:13:16 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 10, 2014, 04:08:14 AM

You can try this in a chair on wheels on an even wooden floor.
Sit on your chair , put your feet up and use your body to sort of kick you back. What you find is, you will move back a little but as you do, you will also notice that your body then kicks forward a little and puts you back, roughly to where you were.
Try it.

only if I contract my legs again at the end of the kick. If I keep them straight out I remain further back and don't move toward the old position.

Yes and that is called UNBALANCING that force against you. It's called cheating the force.
It's like being stood up in a wind tunnel. You get blown backwards but if you immediately lie down you lessen the pressure hitting you, making it easier to resist it.

Just telling you what happens when I try it.

If I kick one way on my wheelie chair I go the other, if I contract my legs I move back but only IF I contract my legs. otherwise I only move in the single direction.

Also a couple of people look at me funny and shake their heads but that's probably not relevant.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 10, 2014, 04:23:13 AM

Quote from: Spank86 on January 10, 2014, 04:13:16 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 10, 2014, 04:08:14 AM

You can try this in a chair on wheels on an even wooden floor.
Sit on your chair , put your feet up and use your body to sort of kick you back. What you find is, you will move back a little but as you do, you will also notice that your body then kicks forward a little and puts you back, roughly to where you were.
Try it.

only if I contract my legs again at the end of the kick. If I keep them straight out I remain further back and don't move toward the old position.

Yes and that is called UNBALANCING that force against you. It's called cheating the force.
It's like being stood up in a wind tunnel. You get blown backwards but if you immediately lie down you lessen the pressure hitting you, making it easier to resist it.

Just telling you what happens when I try it.

If I kick one way on my wheelie chair I go the other, if I contract my legs I move back but only IF I contract my legs. otherwise I only move in the single direction.

Also a couple of people look at me funny and shake their heads but that's probably not relevant.

Of course you will move a little further, because you have used your own energy against the pressure behind you and then changed your position at allow you to be under less friction of the returning pressure that will push back against you.

If you continuously kicked out to move yourself backwards you would continue moving because your energy is constantly compressing the air in front of you, but remember. As you compress it. that air then has to go somewhere, which it does...it gets spread around your body and hits the air behind you compressing it back against you. It's the reason why you always feel a kick when someone is accelerating and changing gears.

next time you are in the passenger seat of a manual geared car, take note of the acceleration and gear changes on your body.
As it accelerates, you will be gently pushed back into your seat, but as the gear change comes, the acceleration is momentarily suspended and you feel it as the kick back force and you slightly go forward until that accelerator is pressed again and then you are pushed back, etc, etc.

If you really open your mind to this and wipe out the nonsense that you have been told, you have a chance of understanding it, seriously. Don't follow the indocs as they will just derail your mind.

If people are interested I will do a number of diagrams to explain why gravity and inertia are bogus by explaining what happens in any scenario people want to give me.
Only genuine people who are interested in finding out the truth and who are prepared to give it SERIOUS thought, need apply to this.

So, anyone who has been saturated with this gravity nonsense, who go along with it and don't really know why and would like to know why so called Newtons laws work and how anything works, whether it's ships, rockets, moving chairs, being pinned to a seat at speed, being flung through a windscreen and any other thing you can possibly think of, I will explain it in as best simplistic detail as I possibly can to you, which hopefully will help you to think outside of the box in future and question EVERYTHING and believe NOTHING until you are 100% satisfied in the explanation without ever having to wonder about forces than cannot be explained.
Any force that cannot be explained by science is not and never was a force to begin with. They can throw equations at you for anything and often do to baffle your mind.
Be simplistic in your thoughts and use your own logic and common sense and do not be intimidated into believing something you are not entirely comfortable believing.

The only nonsense in this thread is you.

When a baseball player hits a ball, where does all the force go that was transferred from the bat to the ball?

If I was to drop a bouncy ball the air pressure would force the ball down as you say. Then the ball would hit the floor and then start to bounce back up. You would say that air is now forcing it up. Then the air would feel the need to not force it upwards and switch to force it down again. Doesn't make sense.

Why is it if I close my eyes and jump, I do not feel a force, but when I accelerate in my car I feel a force? How does air know when to cause a force to be felt and when not to?

I've skipped a few pages, so I'm not sure if anyone brought up motorcycles in relation to inertia. Y'all have been focusing on the bus analogy, but what about a motorbike? I ride whenever I get the chance, and there's something I'd like to point out that are relevant to this discussion.

When accelerating hard from a standing start (or a rolling start, for that matter), it takes quite a bit of effort to stay on the bike. Once at a steady speed though, with the substantial increase in dynamic air pressure against the front of my body, it's relatively easy to remain in place. I feel this is a major contradiction to scepti's hypothesis that air pressure is the true source of inertia. How can it be, if I feel less like I'm going to fall off the back of my bike while maintaining 100kph (large pressure difference between the front and back of my body) than I do when accelerating from standstill (no pressure difference)?

I've skipped a few pages, so I'm not sure if anyone brought up motorcycles in relation to inertia. Y'all have been focusing on the bus analogy, but what about a motorbike? I ride whenever I get the chance, and there's something I'd like to point out that are relevant to this discussion.

When accelerating hard from a standing start (or a rolling start, for that matter), it takes quite a bit of effort to stay on the bike. Once at a steady speed though, with the substantial increase in dynamic air pressure against the front of my body, it's relatively easy to remain in place. I feel this is a major contradiction to scepti's hypothesis that air pressure is the true source of inertia. How can it be, if I feel less like I'm going to fall off the back of my bike while maintaining 100kph (large pressure difference between the front and back of my body) than I do when accelerating from standstill (no pressure difference)?

I was thinking of a similar analogy using a motorbike - that being, when I tip it in at speed (to non bikers, that is to turn), why do I feel like I'm being flung to the outside of the corner despite, for all intents and purposes still travelling forwards through the air... What is trying to push / pull me towards the outside of the corner?

Following Scepti's hypothesis, the low pressure will be on the inside of the corner where I'm leaving a big hole with high pressure on the outside. Now, as always, mother nature will try to balance the system and the high pressure will try to make it's way towards the low pressure which should in turn push me towards the inside of the corner. This doesn't happen.

Just to be clear, the bike has changed direction however, me, my body, whats to continue forwards so much so I have to lean the bike over, hang off the bike etc.. to fight that force.

I've skipped a few pages, so I'm not sure if anyone brought up motorcycles in relation to inertia. Y'all have been focusing on the bus analogy, but what about a motorbike? I ride whenever I get the chance, and there's something I'd like to point out that are relevant to this discussion.

When accelerating hard from a standing start (or a rolling start, for that matter), it takes quite a bit of effort to stay on the bike. Once at a steady speed though, with the substantial increase in dynamic air pressure against the front of my body, it's relatively easy to remain in place. I feel this is a major contradiction to scepti's hypothesis that air pressure is the true source of inertia. How can it be, if I feel less like I'm going to fall off the back of my bike while maintaining 100kph (large pressure difference between the front and back of my body) than I do when accelerating from standstill (no pressure difference)?

From your standing start, you have balanced air pressure around you, right?
As soon as you accelerate  you are IMMEDIATELY pushing through the air at the front and it's that initial push which is key, because the air has not had the chance to come back around and equalize.
Basically you have created a High pressure at the front of you and a low pressure behind you and as long as you accelerate, this will always be the case and you will feel that higher pressure force, because you are going faster than the air can equalize behind you to basically cushion you.
As soon as you reach a set speed, you still feel the force you are travelling through at the front as in friction on your body, or pressure but it's also evened out behind you as in a balanced cushion of you like.

Quote from: Scintific Method on January 10, 2014, 05:45:58 AM

I've skipped a few pages, so I'm not sure if anyone brought up motorcycles in relation to inertia. Y'all have been focusing on the bus analogy, but what about a motorbike? I ride whenever I get the chance, and there's something I'd like to point out that are relevant to this discussion.

When accelerating hard from a standing start (or a rolling start, for that matter), it takes quite a bit of effort to stay on the bike. Once at a steady speed though, with the substantial increase in dynamic air pressure against the front of my body, it's relatively easy to remain in place. I feel this is a major contradiction to scepti's hypothesis that air pressure is the true source of inertia. How can it be, if I feel less like I'm going to fall off the back of my bike while maintaining 100kph (large pressure difference between the front and back of my body) than I do when accelerating from standstill (no pressure difference)?

I was thinking of a similar analogy using a motorbike - that being, when I tip it in at speed (to non bikers, that is to turn), why do I feel like I'm being flung to the outside of the corner despite, for all intents and purposes still travelling forwards through the air... What is trying to push / pull me towards the outside of the corner?

Following Scepti's hypothesis, the low pressure will be on the inside of the corner where I'm leaving a big hole with high pressure on the outside. Now, as always, mother nature will try to balance the system and the high pressure will try to make it's way towards the low pressure which should in turn push me towards the inside of the corner. This doesn't happen.

Just to be clear, the bike has changed direction however, me, my body, whats to continue forwards so much so I have to lean the bike over, hang off the bike etc.. to fight that force.

The very fact that you had to lean your bike (by your own force) into a turn, you balanced the forces yourself with your own density and that of your bike.
The very second you turned and leaned into the corner, you created a HIGH pressure environment under that lean, you compressed the air down that side with your body and your bike.
Because of this, that compressed air immediately gets pushed around you to the outside to compensate or equalize.

Quote from: Antonio on January 09, 2014, 02:17:00 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2014, 11:54:37 AM

Quote from: Antonio on January 09, 2014, 11:45:48 AM

Experiment One:
A bus, a kid on a skateboard, placed just behind the driver, in the aisle . All doors closed.

We start with both the bus and the kid at rest, relative to the road. A starting line has been drawn on it and the kid is just above it.
Now, the bus starts, accelerating up to -say - 20 mph, when his rear end crosses the starting line.

What would be the speed of the kid just before he crashes into the rear glass of the bus, and its direction ? A rough estimate is ok.
What would be his position, relative to the starting line ?

Is the bus still accelerating after it hits 20 or holding a constant 20 mph speed as the kid hits the line?

Give the two alternatives if you want

If the kid is on the skateboard and the bus accelerates to 20 mph as he hits the line and then the bus speed stays at that constant speed from that point, then, apart from a few wobbles of balance, the kid will move over the line a little, then move back to the line (approx).
Why does this happen?
Because the air push on his back started his motion as the bus was accelerating and compressing the air... but when it stopped accelerating...the compressed air starts to balance back up, meaning it goes back to the front to fill the very last bit of low pressure and this will be felt as a sort of kick back, basically stopping the kid in his tracks and moving him back a touch.

You can try this in a chair on wheels on an even wooden floor.
Sit on your chair , put your feet up and use your body to sort of kick you back. What you find is, you will move back a little but as you do, you will also notice that your body then kicks forward a little and puts you back, roughly to where you were.
Try it. This isn't called inertia...it's my new word...denpressure.

All you have done is used your body to compress the air behind you as you jolt yourself and that air has kicked back at you...that's all it is. It's just your density against air pressure = denpressure.

Are you saying that the speed of the kid is nearly 0, as he didn't move ?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 10, 2014, 04:08:14 AM

Quote from: Antonio on January 09, 2014, 02:17:00 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 09, 2014, 11:54:37 AM

Quote from: Antonio on January 09, 2014, 11:45:48 AM

Experiment One:
A bus, a kid on a skateboard, placed just behind the driver, in the aisle . All doors closed.

We start with both the bus and the kid at rest, relative to the road. A starting line has been drawn on it and the kid is just above it.
Now, the bus starts, accelerating up to -say - 20 mph, when his rear end crosses the starting line.

What would be the speed of the kid just before he crashes into the rear glass of the bus, and its direction ? A rough estimate is ok.
What would be his position, relative to the starting line ?

Is the bus still accelerating after it hits 20 or holding a constant 20 mph speed as the kid hits the line?

Give the two alternatives if you want

If the kid is on the skateboard and the bus accelerates to 20 mph as he hits the line and then the bus speed stays at that constant speed from that point, then, apart from a few wobbles of balance, the kid will move over the line a little, then move back to the line (approx).
Why does this happen?
Because the air push on his back started his motion as the bus was accelerating and compressing the air... but when it stopped accelerating...the compressed air starts to balance back up, meaning it goes back to the front to fill the very last bit of low pressure and this will be felt as a sort of kick back, basically stopping the kid in his tracks and moving him back a touch.

You can try this in a chair on wheels on an even wooden floor.
Sit on your chair , put your feet up and use your body to sort of kick you back. What you find is, you will move back a little but as you do, you will also notice that your body then kicks forward a little and puts you back, roughly to where you were.
Try it. This isn't called inertia...it's my new word...denpressure.

All you have done is used your body to compress the air behind you as you jolt yourself and that air has kicked back at you...that's all it is. It's just your density against air pressure = denpressure.

Are you saying that the speed of the kid is nearly 0, as he didn't move ?

No, I'm not saying that at all. Unless I've took you wrong, you said that the kid reaches the line as the bus accelerated to 20 mph, so I just used the fact he reached the line when the bus reached a steady speed.