UA vs Denpressure

  • 448 Replies
  • 58686 Views
UA vs Denpressure
« on: January 26, 2017, 06:01:35 PM »
Which model describes reality with fewer assumptions?

I think the answer is UA, because denpressure needs some serious mental gymnastics to figure out how the sun is supposed to work the way we see it currently.

Upward Acceleration also seems to fit the description of gravity a lot better. Denpressure caves when evacuation chambers are introduced, and denpressure also seems to have strange definitions for displacement and other commonly known scientific principles.


?

Arealhumanbeing

  • 1474
  • Leader of the Second American Revolution
Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #1 on: January 26, 2017, 06:17:57 PM »
Eh, I think youre wrong. Denpressure makes more sense, but how can I expect a DMT addict like Mr.Pineal, who likes to blatently lie, to understand it. Respect your pineal gland. Dont do drugs!

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11196
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #2 on: January 26, 2017, 06:33:08 PM »
I would vote denspressure as well over UA.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

?

Twerp

  • Gutter Sniper
  • Flat Earth Almost Believer
  • 6540
Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #3 on: January 26, 2017, 06:40:39 PM »
I would vote denspressure as well over UA.

Why?
“Heaven is being governed by Devil nowadays..” - Wise

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11196
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #4 on: January 26, 2017, 06:46:00 PM »
I would vote denspressure as well over UA.

Why?

Because it is so easy to prove incorrect. Air travel ends UA.

Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #5 on: January 26, 2017, 06:54:45 PM »
I would vote denspressure as well over UA.

Why?

Because it is so easy to prove incorrect. Air travel ends UA.

Denpressure fails to stand up to an evacuation chamber.

How is air travel impossible under UA?

?

Twerp

  • Gutter Sniper
  • Flat Earth Almost Believer
  • 6540
Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #6 on: January 26, 2017, 06:56:04 PM »
I would vote denspressure as well over UA.

Why?

Because it is so easy to prove incorrect. Air travel ends UA.

Because the atmosphere would compress into the earth?

Denspressure is directionless. Buoyancy and density work the way they do as a result of gravity.
“Heaven is being governed by Devil nowadays..” - Wise

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #7 on: January 26, 2017, 07:05:35 PM »
Which model describes reality with fewer assumptions?

I think the answer is UA, because denpressure needs some serious mental gymnastics to figure out how the sun is supposed to work the way we see it currently.

Upward Acceleration also seems to fit the description of gravity a lot better. Denpressure caves when evacuation chambers are introduced, and denpressure also seems to have strange definitions for displacement and other commonly known scientific principles.

I don't accept either UA or "denpressure", but UA does model gravity fairly closely.
There are quite a few things is does not adequately explain, not the least being what "powers it".
Quote from: The Flat Earth Wiki
UNIVERSAL ACCELERATION
In the Universal Acceleration model, all the celestial bodies including the earth are being accelerated in one uniform direction at roughly 9.81 m/s2. The proposed method of propulsion is Dark Energy?.[/size]

Many Flat Earthers ridicule the hypothese of "dark matter" and "dark energy", but these are only hypothese to explain  observations on a cosmic scale. Other explanations have been proposed.

But, proponents of UA can suggest only Dark Energy for the massive power source needed to explain everyday things on earth, here and now!

So yes, UA explains the effects of gravity much better than "denpressure", but it certainly has its opponents - like me!

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #8 on: January 26, 2017, 07:08:40 PM »
Which model describes reality with fewer assumptions?

I think the answer is UA, because denpressure needs some serious mental gymnastics to figure out how the sun is supposed to work the way we see it currently.

Upward Acceleration also seems to fit the description of gravity a lot better. Denpressure caves when evacuation chambers are introduced, and denpressure also seems to have strange definitions for displacement and other commonly known scientific principles.
In some ways, denpressure needs UA (or some sort of acceleration) in order to work, otherwise the stacking molecules to know which way is down.
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.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #9 on: January 26, 2017, 07:13:57 PM »
I would vote denspressure as well over UA.
Why?
Because it is so easy to prove incorrect. Air travel ends UA.
I'm sorry to have to disagree, but on the effects of UA would be almost impossible to distinguish from the effects of gravity.
This from the FE Wiki
Quote
Equivalence Principle

To fully understand the Equivalence Principle, imagine you are in what looks to be the inside of an elevator. There are no windows and no way to see out of the container you are in. If you drop an object, say an apple for instance, and it falls to the floor in exactly the same manner in which you would expect it to on Earth. How can you tell whether the container you are in is being influenced by a massive object's gravitational field or if the container is being accelerated? The answer is, according to Einstein, is that you cannot. Let us now say that you start to feel a sense of weightlessness and begin to float around inside your container. How can you tell whether the container you are in is in deep space far from anything exhibiting a gravitational field or if you are free-falling with the container due to gravitation? Once again, you cannot.
I know it's from the FE Wiki, but it is essentially correct.

One of the biggest weaknesses is that Einstein's Equivalence Principle is applicable only over a limited region of space where the gravitational field is constant in magnitude and direction. That is not true on earth.

?

Twerp

  • Gutter Sniper
  • Flat Earth Almost Believer
  • 6540
Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #10 on: January 26, 2017, 07:33:50 PM »
“Heaven is being governed by Devil nowadays..” - Wise

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11196
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #11 on: January 26, 2017, 07:59:35 PM »
I would vote denspressure as well over UA.

Why?

Because it is so easy to prove incorrect. Air travel ends UA.

Denpressure fails to stand up to an evacuation chamber.

How is air travel impossible under UA?

As boots and others  said...What is "down" is the monster issue with denspressure, if there were some explanation of down, it is a theory that could be feasible.

However, UA... Newton's laws bring serious issues to this hypothesis. When we jump....The ground is coming to us, we are not coming to the ground.

So, with an airplane, once it takes off it would literally be chased by the ground, so it would always have to be nose up "running away"..

If the earth were going a static speed, then this wouldn't be an issue, Newton's laws takes care of that, however, with constant acceleration, it doesn't work.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #12 on: January 26, 2017, 08:06:38 PM »

What would you say to this specifically? :

Air travel ends UA.

Simply that on earth there is virtually no way tell the difference between UA and gravity.

The deficiencies in UA are that it does not correctly account for observed variations in g with latitude and altitude.
These variations are, however, small and will not seriously impact on things like flying.
Of course, at much higher altitudes g does fall off markedly, but the FEers conveniently claim high altitude rockets are impossible.

There's more, but I have to go, and as Terry Pratchett wrote, "When you've gotta go, you've gotta go!"

?

Twerp

  • Gutter Sniper
  • Flat Earth Almost Believer
  • 6540
Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #13 on: January 26, 2017, 08:25:46 PM »

What would you say to this specifically? :

Air travel ends UA.

Simply that on earth there is virtually no way tell the difference between UA and gravity.

The deficiencies in UA are that it does not correctly account for observed variations in g with latitude and altitude.
These variations are, however, small and will not seriously impact on things like flying.
Of course, at much higher altitudes g does fall off markedly, but the FEers conveniently claim high altitude rockets are impossible.

There's more, but I have to go, and as Terry Pratchett wrote, "When you've gotta go, you've gotta go!"

OK. But I think the atmoplane at 100 Km or anywhere in between would all be under the same "effective acceleration rate" as the atmoplane just above the earth, 9.8m/s2. This is different from a gravitational force that grows weaker as the distance between masses increases. So wouldn't the dynamics of flying almost certainly be altered?
“Heaven is being governed by Devil nowadays..” - Wise

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11196
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #14 on: January 26, 2017, 08:27:15 PM »

What would you say to this specifically? :

Air travel ends UA.

Simply that on earth there is virtually no way tell the difference between UA and gravity.

The deficiencies in UA are that it does not correctly account for observed variations in g with latitude and altitude.
These variations are, however, small and will not seriously impact on things like flying.
Of course, at much higher altitudes g does fall off markedly, but the FEers conveniently claim high altitude rockets are impossible.

There's more, but I have to go, and as Terry Pratchett wrote, "When you've gotta go, you've gotta go!"

Do you not think the explanation I gave with air travel gives a difference between UA and gravity? From my point of view and understanding of reality, it seems pretty obvious the earth is not coming at me at 99.9 percent the speed of light ever accelerating in a paradox of relativity to avoid faster than light speeds.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

?

Arealhumanbeing

  • 1474
  • Leader of the Second American Revolution
Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #15 on: January 26, 2017, 08:44:14 PM »
Denpressure fails to stand up to an evacuation chamber.

Thats false, you misunderstand what an evacuation chamber is.

Also no one has taken the dome into account when discussing both UA or denpressure. It explains why denpressure theory has a stacked atmosphere, and why planes can fly in a UA model.

Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #16 on: January 26, 2017, 09:42:29 PM »
Denpressure fails to stand up to an evacuation chamber.
Thats false, you misunderstand what an evacuation chamber is.

An evacuation chamber removes almost all barometric pressure from an enclosed space. The pressure inside one of these chambers once it has been evacuated is so low that mercury barometers cannot give any reading.

Think about this. If the atmosphere inside an evacuated chamber cannot exert enough energy upon a mercury barometer to get a reading, how could the air pressure possibly have enough force to push a bowling ball downwards?


*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #17 on: January 27, 2017, 12:40:12 AM »
Do you not think the explanation I gave with air travel gives a difference between UA and gravity? From my point of view and understanding of reality, it seems pretty obvious the earth is not coming at me at 99.9 percent the speed of light ever accelerating in a paradox of relativity to avoid faster than light speeds.
I don't really relish being the one to "defend" UA because I believe the it is wrong, but not for the reasons raised.

Special Relativity would mean that whatever the velocity of earth relative to an inertial frame of reference (one not accelerating) it would make no difference to us. This would be the same for 99.99% c, 99.9999% c or however close you like to make it.

Now under UA,
the earth, it's inhabitants, everything on esrth and all celestial objects are subject to the same acceleration (g) - but some "magic" holds the celestial objects up there.

If you drop a rock (or jump off a cliff) the rock is initially travelling at the velocity of the earth, but is no longer accelerating.
So the earth accelerates towards the rock at g.
But from the point of view of someone on earth, it simply appears as though the rock is accelerating downwards at g.

I do find serious weaknesses in UA, but superficially it models gravity fairly well, but
  • It does not explain the observed variations in g.

  • It offers no explanation for tides. Celestial gravitation is suggested. I cannot see how it can explain the observe link between tides and the sun and moon, especially the fact that most, but not all places get two tides per day.
It should be pointed out that the observed variations of g with latitude and altitude formed a big part in the research of Robert Hooke and Isaac Newton that lead to the formulation of Newton's Theory of Gravitation.

Now as to the lack of variation of gravity with altitude under UA affecting flight, even at an altitude is say 20 km,
gravity is reduced by only 0.6%, not enough to have a dramatic effect. The FES also suggests that
Quote
Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.

There an interesting point that no flat earther will take seriously. This is as a result of time dilation.
If there is any part of the universe that is not accelerating, ie an inertial reference frame, either that inertial reference frame is an unimaginable age (and I mean an unimaginable times 13 billion years) or the earth as we know it is not more than a few hundred years old.

In About this accelerating Flat Earth idea « Reply #13 on: September 27, 2016, 02:59:28 PM » I presented my ideas on this.

A couple of results from this were
Quote
If the earth were to start accelerating at 9.8 m/s2 13.6 billion years ago by now, due to time slowing down on the accelerating earth (that is Time Dilation) only 45.5 years would have elapsed on earth! I would love some "expert" to peruse these figures!
and
Quote
If you are a Douglas Adams fan, then 42 has a special significance, so if the "Inertial Reference Frame" outside earth were 2.46753105 billion years old[2] then the earth accelerating at 9.8 m/s2 would have experienced only 42 years!
Anyone here older than 42 years - er, I am, a lot!

These were presented a bit light heartedly but I would love someone far more expert in relativity offer an opinion.

But, the bottom line on UA, from my point of view is that it models gravity quite well, but has serious deficiencies.

?

Twerp

  • Gutter Sniper
  • Flat Earth Almost Believer
  • 6540
Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #18 on: January 27, 2017, 12:58:52 AM »
I was thinking that because of the difference in acceleration between UA and Gravity in the higher atmoplane the air would be more compressed under UA and this would affect flight. But I had no idea how big this effect would be. From what I understand the effect would be quite small.
“Heaven is being governed by Devil nowadays..” - Wise

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11196
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #19 on: January 27, 2017, 01:42:27 AM »
I was thinking that because of the difference in acceleration between UA and Gravity in the higher atmoplane the air would be more compressed under UA and this would affect flight. But I had no idea how big this effect would be. From what I understand the effect would be quite small.

I didn't even think about that... This is another issue with UA, there would be some sort of constant down draft.

Though...


I feel you are still missing my main issue and difference with UA and flight...

I am fully aware it would LOOK no different if the ground were coming to use or vice versa... HOWEVER.... There would be a monster difference if you planned on stay detached from the ground for any length of time like air travel.

You are no longer attempting to stay in the air from a static earth...No.....You have a dynamic ever accelerating land mass and water mass coming directly for you. Fuel consumption, air speed, and gyro positioning would show this very quickly as you nose up attempting to stay ahead of this angry, flat, ever accelerating land mass....Fuel consumption would be much higher and air speed much lower, your artificial horizon and gyros would signify a constant ascent.


Though this is noted....You defended this with fury rabinoz....Closet flat earther I see...;D

I can't say I am surprised, it is always the one that says "I didn't do it" the loudest that did do it. ;D

Noobs have to walk İntikam...As well as carry the poop bag for his droppings.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

?

Twerp

  • Gutter Sniper
  • Flat Earth Almost Believer
  • 6540
Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #20 on: January 27, 2017, 02:22:56 AM »
Though this is noted....You defended this with fury rabinoz....Closet flat earther I see...;D

I can't say I am surprised, it is always the one that says "I didn't do it" the loudest that did do it. ;D
This conversation in general is interesting. But this   ^   is silly.
“Heaven is being governed by Devil nowadays..” - Wise

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #21 on: January 27, 2017, 04:12:29 AM »
I was thinking that because of the difference in acceleration between UA and Gravity in the higher atmoplane the air would be more compressed under UA and this would affect flight. But I had no idea how big this effect would be. From what I understand the effect would be quite small.

I didn't even think about that... This is another issue with UA, there would be some sort of constant down draft.

Though...

I feel you are still missing my main issue and difference with UA and flight...
Though this is noted....You defended this with fury rabinoz....Closet flat earther I see...;D
I can't say I am surprised, it is always the one that says "I didn't do it" the loudest that did do it. ;D
The FE position is that UA accelerates the earth and I assume celestial objects (??), but not objects on or "near" the earth.
Now, don't ask me why that is - reasons, I guess.

This Society's Wiki has an entry for Einsteins Equivalence Principle. but it's much in need of repair. TFES.org also has it, but I cannot link to it for "reasons", so I will copy it
Quote from: T F E S Wiki
Equivalence Principle
The phenomenon we observe everyday when falling is currently substantiated in modern physics by what is called "The Equivalence Principle".

This principle in physics states that in a relative frame of reference, it is not possible to locally discern whether the frame is accelerating upwards, or if the object inside the frame is affected by gravity.

Several frequently asked questions are, "How is that I can jump and then come back down?" and "Why is it that I feel as though I'm being pulled toward the earth?"

Since the Earth is pushing you upwards, you are moving at the same speed as the Earth, much like when you are sitting in a car, the car is pushing you along. When you jump, your upward velocity is for a moment, greater than the Earth's so you rise above it. But after a few moments, the Earth's increasing velocity due to its acceleration eventually catches up.

Accelerating to the Speed of Light
It is a common misconception that if we were to continuously accelerate over time, we would eventually be moving faster than the speed of light. This is of course, incorrect as nothing with mass may do so.

According to the Special theory of Relativity, the Earth can accelerate forever without reaching or passing the speed of light. Relative to an observer on Earth, the Earth's acceleration will always be 1g. Relative to an inertial observer in the universe, however, the Earth's acceleration decreases as its velocity approaches c. It all depends on our frame of reference to measure and explain the Earth's motion. Thus, despite what most people think, there is no absolute "speed" or velocity of the Earth.
   

The Equivalence Principle
Even though this is from "the Wiki" it is essentially correct.
You might also look at Einstein inline, The elevator, the rocket, and gravity: the equivalence principle.

You might get the picture if you accept that all objects "near the earth", including aircraft (no high altitude rockets - Verboten!), are supposedly inside the accelerating rocket in the diagram.

So, no I do not support UA, but you will get yourself into deep trouble if you oppose it for the wrong reasons.

By the way, if you suspect that I support UA, you need only look at my older posts on the topic,
where I used details of the "Einstein's Equivalence Principle" to vehemently oppose it.
Flat Earth General / Re: Why do astronauts on board ISS float around? « Message by rabinoz on December 19, 2015, 10:07:33 PM »
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Universal Accelerator - how it works? « Message by rabinoz on January 01, 2016, 10:21:08 PM »
There are many more.

One of my opponents at the time was a very knowledgable Flat Earther, TheEngineer (a Planar Moderator), who I notice never actually claimed that what I said about UA was wrong, he just side-stepped the issue. I finally pinned him down in a PM.
He never insisted that I keep his reply under wraps, so after a year I doubt that there is a problem quoting some of it:
Since you PM'd, I'll be a little more straight to the point than usual.
Quote
As such maybe you can at least say whether there are any valid answers to these discrepancies.
There are no valid answers to this point that I have ever come across.  The standard answer is gravitation of the celestial bodies.
Quote
I did note in an earlier post that you were also non-committal about supporting the FE, so I won't push this further!
Correct.

Notwithstanding all of this UA is a far better explanation of gravity than "denpressure" - for many reasons!

<< Hope that there are not too many errors >>

Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #22 on: January 27, 2017, 05:38:04 AM »
They are both bullshit, but UA is a far more sophisticated argument than the childish denpressure.


You are no longer attempting to stay in the air from a static earth...No.....You have a dynamic ever accelerating land mass and water mass coming directly for you. Fuel consumption, air speed, and gyro positioning would show this very quickly as you nose up attempting to stay ahead of this angry, flat, ever accelerating land mass....Fuel consumption would be much higher and air speed much lower, your artificial horizon and gyros would signify a constant ascent.
This is not the reason why UA doesn't work  - the plane would only have to compensate for the 9.8 m/s/s acceleration of the planet - it would be indistinguishable from gravity in these circumstances.   You are making the same argument/mistake that flatties make as to why the earth can't possibly be spinning.

Imagine yourself in a spacecraft travelling through space at 1,000,000 mph, relative to some arbitrary fixed point, and accelerating at 9.8 m/s/s.  Now release small toy drone.  Will the drone have to compensate for the 1,000,000mph speed?  Or would this be irrelevant and it will only have to generate enough thrust to compensate for the acceleration?
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

?

Arealhumanbeing

  • 1474
  • Leader of the Second American Revolution
Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #23 on: January 27, 2017, 08:44:09 AM »
Denpressure fails to stand up to an evacuation chamber.
Thats false, you misunderstand what an evacuation chamber is.

An evacuation chamber removes almost all barometric pressure from an enclosed space. The pressure inside one of these chambers once it has been evacuated is so low that mercury barometers cannot give any reading.

Think about this. If the atmosphere inside an evacuated chamber cannot exert enough energy upon a mercury barometer to get a reading, how could the air pressure possibly have enough force to push a bowling ball downwards?

Lol You think a barometer gives no reading in a vacuum chamber? You are also mistaken in thinking a vacuum chamber removes all pressure, that is not true.

?

Twerp

  • Gutter Sniper
  • Flat Earth Almost Believer
  • 6540
Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #24 on: January 27, 2017, 08:57:51 AM »
An evacuation chamber removes almost all barometric pressure from an enclosed space. .
You are also mistaken in thinking a vacuum chamber removes all pressure, that is not true.
Hi there. I was just wondering if this is one of your "well though out responses."
“Heaven is being governed by Devil nowadays..” - Wise

*

deadsirius

  • 899
  • Crime Machine
Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #25 on: January 27, 2017, 09:12:06 AM »

This is not the reason why UA doesn't work  - the plane would only have to compensate for the 9.8 m/s/s acceleration of the planet - it would be indistinguishable from gravity in these circumstances.


This is what I've been waiting to see in this thread.  It seems to me that under Universal Acceleration, a plane would stay aloft the same way it does on round earth--by propelling itself through the air and generating lift via its wings.  Yes, the earth will be accelerating up towards it at 9.8m/s2, but I fail to see how that's any different from gravity accelerating the plane towards earth at 9.8m/s2.

The biggest failing for denpressure for me, as was mentioned above, is explaining "down".  It makes a certain amount of sense if you take "down-fallingness" as a given, but that's pretty much just gravity by another name.  The argument seems to be that because RE-ers can't 100% explain the mechanism by which gravity works, we have to simply accept the effects of gravity without attempting any explanation whatsoever.  But the effect must necessarily still be there for denpressure to begin to work.
Suffering from a martyr complex...so you don't have to

?

Arealhumanbeing

  • 1474
  • Leader of the Second American Revolution
Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #26 on: January 27, 2017, 09:13:12 AM »
Please, explain what a barometer does in a vacuum chamber. Because "nothing" is not a valid answer.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #27 on: January 27, 2017, 10:14:29 AM »
I would think a mercury barometer would leak all over.


Anyways denpressure would lead to objects falling at different rates depending on orientation.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11196
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #28 on: January 27, 2017, 11:26:09 AM »
First of all.....


I was joking about you being a closet flat earther so please contain yourself... I always forget about your lacking sense of humor lol. I suppose there was a reason I made a threat just trying to get you to tell a joke.

I even put ;D afterwards hoping you would get the joking part...


This is not the reason why UA doesn't work  - the plane would only have to compensate for the 9.8 m/s/s acceleration of the planet - it would be indistinguishable from gravity in these circumstances.


This is what I've been waiting to see in this thread.  It seems to me that under Universal Acceleration, a plane would stay aloft the same way it does on round earth--by propelling itself through the air and generating lift via its wings.  Yes, the earth will be accelerating up towards it at 9.8m/s2, but I fail to see how that's any different from gravity accelerating the plane towards earth at 9.8m/s2.

The biggest failing for denpressure for me, as was mentioned above, is explaining "down".  It makes a certain amount of sense if you take "down-fallingness" as a given, but that's pretty much just gravity by another name.  The argument seems to be that because RE-ers can't 100% explain the mechanism by which gravity works, we have to simply accept the effects of gravity without attempting any explanation whatsoever.  But the effect must necessarily still be there for denpressure to begin to work.

It makes all the difference in the world...

Planes now just have to generate lift to fly over a static object. Yes it is spinning, but everything is spinning including the atmosphere, and nothing is stopping that original motion, so the plane is just moving around through the atmosphere. (Like swimming in a pool)

However, the ground itself is not coming at the plane..It is static.

So as soon as you are off the ground it is immediately chasing after, you are not bring drawn to it. Not a problem unless you want to stay in the air.

This upwards movement would not even be an issue if it was static. You would just have the exact same situation we have with a spinning globe.

However...With constant acceleration, we have a totally different story. The planes airspeed, fuel consumption and pitch would indicate it is using energy flying forward AND up...Which it would have to. Which none of this happens..

Just on a plane landing proves this hypothesis incorrect, they would pitch totally different if the ground was coming at them instead of them being attracted to the ground.

Also whoever compared this to a Celestial body like a spaceship...That isn't even a comparison, we are not talking millions of miles (easy to compensate for, little needed), we are talking thousands of feet (much compensation needed, not so easy to compensate for)

Just imagine swimming in a pool while the ground was chasing after you at the speed purported....You could swim up all you want, you would never beat it, just be flat on the floor and more than likely drown if it was two deep.

Good analogy for this plane situation

The actions of water and the atmosphere is a different subject though on the hypothesis.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2017, 11:29:47 AM by Babyhighspeed »
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

deadsirius

  • 899
  • Crime Machine
Re: UA vs Denpressure
« Reply #29 on: January 27, 2017, 01:10:18 PM »

It makes all the difference in the world...

Planes now just have to generate lift to fly over a static object. Yes it is spinning, but everything is spinning including the atmosphere, and nothing is stopping that original motion, so the plane is just moving around through the atmosphere. (Like swimming in a pool)

However, the ground itself is not coming at the plane..It is static.

So as soon as you are off the ground it is immediately chasing after, you are not bring drawn to it. Not a problem unless you want to stay in the air.

This upwards movement would not even be an issue if it was static. You would just have the exact same situation we have with a spinning globe.

However...With constant acceleration, we have a totally different story. The planes airspeed, fuel consumption and pitch would indicate it is using energy flying forward AND up...Which it would have to. Which none of this happens..

Just on a plane landing proves this hypothesis incorrect, they would pitch totally different if the ground was coming at them instead of them being attracted to the ground.

Also whoever compared this to a Celestial body like a spaceship...That isn't even a comparison, we are not talking millions of miles (easy to compensate for, little needed), we are talking thousands of feet (much compensation needed, not so easy to compensate for)

Just imagine swimming in a pool while the ground was chasing after you at the speed purported....You could swim up all you want, you would never beat it, just be flat on the floor and more than likely drown if it was two deep.

Good analogy for this plane situation

The actions of water and the atmosphere is a different subject though on the hypothesis.


I get what you mean, but I don't think it's quite right.  I guess I should have stated the assumption that the earth and atmosphere ("atmoplane"?) in UA would be a more or less closed system, like the real world.  In other words, the atmosphere is all being pushed up by the accelerating earth, providing the air pressure we have in the real world due to gravity.  I assume a closed system because it seems that otherwise the atmosphere would all rush to the ground at unimaginable speed and I guess blow off the sides of the earth.

Long story short, all the air over our heads is under the same upward acceleration as the earth so there's no reason a plane couldn't fly through it normally.

In your pool metaphor, if the floor were rushing upwards, then all of the water you're swimming in would also be going up along with you.  If however the water is escaping out some other direction then it's an open system and equivalent to the the above mentioned world where the atmosphere all disappears quickly.

UA still makes no sense though.
Suffering from a martyr complex...so you don't have to