How do things fall?

Time to put your singular, partially functional brain cells to use. How do things on Earth fall down without gravity, if gravity doesn't exist? Don't tell me it's because of "density" and "buoyancy". Density is the amount of matter packed into a certain space. Buoyancy is an object's tendency to float. Neither are forces. Yes, you could say that density causes an object to fall through air because it is denser, but there is air all around it. Why doesn't it fall up? Things fall down in a vacuum, where there is no air. As for buoyancy, that's just saying gravity again. Helium balloons float up because they are lighter than the air. Not less dense. Lighter. Weight and density are two different things. Weight is how much something has an effect on an object. That something is called gravity. You can also say that Earth is accelerating upwards to keep things on it. But, what is causing that? Why haven't we hit the speed of light yet (which is impossible by laws of physics, which none of you have any grasp of)?
So, put your single brain cells to use and conjure up an excuse to gravity. Or do what a classic Flat Earther would do and say "YoU'vE bEeN bRaInWaShEd" and/or tell me to cite a source while not citing one yourself and/or dismiss everything I have said altogether and being up an off-topic thing to avoid this topic.

Technically speaking, things do not fall. The earth rises up to meet them.

Have you considered reading the FAQ?

Technically speaking, things do not fall. The earth rises up to meet them.

Have you considered reading the FAQ?

And you go on to repeat literally what I said not to say, and provided a few discrepancies as to why. Is your attention span that short?

I answered it thus because it is the truth.

Your assertion that we have somehow exceeded the speed of light is demonstrably false, by comparison.

I answered it thus because it is the truth.

Your assertion that we have somehow exceeded the speed of light is demonstrably false, by comparison.

Because according to that brainless theory, we are constantly accelerating upwards, without stopping, so we would've hit the speed of light at some point.
No, it's not the truth. It's a brainless, pseudoscientific conspiracy that is the dumbest in human history.

It is extremely odd that I, a simple man of "partially functional brain cells", having "no grasp of" the laws of physics, am also apparently better acquainted with said laws and velocity addition than you, wouldn't you agree?

It is extremely odd that I, a simple man of "partially functional brain cells", having "no grasp of" the laws of physics, am also apparently better acquainted with said laws and velocity addition than you, wouldn't you agree?

Absolutely not. As the Earth is apparently accelerating upwards, its velocity constantly increases, which will eventually bring the Earth close to the speed of light. That is what 'acceleration' means. There is apparently nothing to slow the Earth down since it's apparently a void we are travelling through outside of the dome that we call the sky, which contains the Sun, Moon, stars, and Earth. A void that contains nothing to offer drag to slow the Earth down and counteract its acceleration.

Absolutely not. As the Earth is apparently accelerating upwards, its velocity constantly increases, which will eventually bring the Earth close to the speed of light

How long does it take until we answer "Why haven't we hit the speed of light", exactly?

Don't mind me, just doing some housekeeping. MidnightWolf9908, if you can't use Q&A the right way, don't use Q&A. Thread moved to Debate.

That's on me, because despite the argumentative tone, he asked a simple question. I had moved it to Q&A.

That's on me, because despite the argumentative tone, he asked a simple question. I had moved it to Q&A.

I see. I hope you don't mind that I relocated it given the OP's clear intention to continue arguing about their passionate-but-misinformed interpretation of SR. But if you see fit to move it back, of course that is entirely up to you sir.

Because according to that brainless theory, we are constantly accelerating upwards, without stopping, so we would've hit the speed of light at some point.

Why haven't we hit the speed of light yet (which is impossible by laws of physics, which none of you have any grasp of)?

Because we will never reach the speed of light because of the same laws you ironically think I cannot grasp.

Oh yeah, of course! Get the moderator to move this conversation. That's what happens every time. You know what, I give up on you. Your skull is too thick to make it worth my time to try and get through.

Quote from: Ski on April 08, 2021, 12:32:33 PM

That's on me, because despite the argumentative tone, he asked a simple question. I had moved it to Q&A.

I see. I hope you don't mind that I relocated it given the OP's clear intention to continue arguing about their passionate-but-misinformed interpretation of SR. But if you see fit to move it back, of course that is entirely up to you sir.

Makes no nevermind to me, sir. I simply did not want to give cause for inciting a bout of complaining from the pitiable oppressed class about these parts. I was the one who moved it.

Oh yeah, of course! Get the moderator to move this conversation. That's what happens every time. You know what, I give up on you. Your skull is too thick to make it worth my time to try and get through.

I had moved it because you had asked a question that I thought you wanted an answer for. The other moderator moved it back to the Debate sub-forum where you had posted it. I'm not sure what your cause for offense is. I even volunteered that I had placed it there, not you, to avoid confusion.

Oh yeah, of course! Get the moderator to move this conversation. That's what happens every time. You know what, I give up on you. Your skull is too thick to make it worth my time to try and get through.

Let's think this through. Let's say you're in a spaceship accelerating at 1G for a while. Then, you cut the engines. And you're still cruising through space because it's basically frictionless. Let's go further and say you find yourself in a vast interstellar void. What velocity does the captain of that ship feel they are moving at, while they are not running the engines, and no longer accelerating? How is he measuring that velocity? Is there a different reference point he could choose to measure the velocity? Could he choose any arbitrary reference point?

Now let's say the engines are turned back on, the ship is accelerating at 1G again. A day goes by. 2 days. At the end of the second day, what do you think that ship's velocity is, and how are you determining it? And moreover, the captain of that ship is able to measure the speed of light - what percentage of c will his measurement show they are traveling?

Quote from: MidnightWolf9908 on April 08, 2021, 12:41:29 PM

Oh yeah, of course! Get the moderator to move this conversation. That's what happens every time. You know what, I give up on you. Your skull is too thick to make it worth my time to try and get through.

I had moved it because you had asked a question that I thought you wanted an answer for. The other moderator moved it back to the Debate sub-forum where you had posted it. I'm not sure what your cause for offense is. I even volunteered that I had placed it there, not you, to avoid confusion.

They may be upset due to a warning I sent them for multiple other posts they have made in Q&A, including one that was just simply an insult that I discovered around the same time I discovered this thread. This thread is not part of the reason I sent a warning though, so hopefully we can get past that.

Oh yeah, of course! Get the moderator to move this conversation. That's what happens every time. You know what, I give up on you. Your skull is too thick to make it worth my time to try and get through.

thats rude! compared to the other flat earth society they are more nice and this community is less toxic

Why haven't we hit the speed of light yet (which is impossible by laws of physics, which none of you have any grasp of)?

Well you kind of answered your own question. It is impossible.
It doesn't matter how long you accelerate for, you will never reach the speed of light.
The first question is what are you measuring velocity relative to?
The next is what are you measuring acceleration relative to?

Time to put your singular, partially functional brain cells to use.

Don't be silly! Singular things can't be plural. Singular brain CELL.  Anyhow, ad-hominem is across purposes to learning and communication and is best left out.  It is the last resort of the intellectually weak; they attack the thinker because they are unable to attack the thought. Viciously attack the thought, never the thinker!

How do things on Earth fall down without gravity

There are many ways to conceptualize the answer.  They fall because they were lifted (and with only the energy that was used to lift them).  They fall to return to their "lowest energy state". They fall because the less dense media below them cannot support their weight.

Density is the amount of matter packed into a certain space.

True, but many times when flat earth researchers talk about density, they are talking about weight density.  The "force", is weight! This is the effective weight; the weight with buoyancy factored in - as opposed to the intrinsic weight which does not factor that in.

Neither are forces.

Bouyancy is absolutely, explicitly, a force;  As is weight!

Why doesn't it fall up?

Because that would be silly, and because it doesn't. A lot of the things we know about the world come purely from observation. In science we call them natural laws, and we rarely get deeper insight into why/how.  They are often "scientific bedrock", and the manifest cardinal directions of up and down are no more explained or explainable than the spatial dimensions themselves or the matter we are discussing the behavior of!  They are, and we have to deal with it!

Things fall down in a vacuum, where there is no air.

There is no such thing as a vacuum, just a lower pressure.  There is always air in the chamber, and even theoretically - there can't NOT be.

As for buoyancy, that's just saying gravity again.

Only when you misunderstand what is being said (which is REALLY easy to do, in part because of vernacular).  There is no gravitation (gravity is a natural law millenia old, and probably isn't going anywhere). Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter. It is not imbued by magic omnipresent "fields" that defy logic, rigorous description, measurement, and manipulation. Wether something falls (gravity), stays put (neutrality) or rises (levity) is primarily to do with the interplay of the volumetric WIEGHT density of the object and that of the surrounding media.

Helium balloons float up because they are lighter than the air.

Almost.  They float up because they are lighter than the volume of media they displace.

Not less dense.

Actually, it's both.  Like the conceptualizations above for the "reason" things fall, there is more than one way to do so and come to a rational understanding.

We can say that the balloon rises because it weighs less than the surrounding media it displaces, and be correct.  We can also say that the helium balloons density (its volumetric density!) is lesser than the media it displaces (the surrounding media), and be correct too!

A lot of confusion is created when people use vernacular that has a different meaning outside the discipline than within it.  It happens in almost every branch of science/philosophy and mathematics.  Hopefully I have cleared up some of the confusion caused by the terms being used.  If not, ask some more questions!

You can also say that Earth is accelerating upwards to keep things on it. But, what is causing that?

Presumably the same infinite and inexhaustible violation of the law of conservation that powers "gravitation's" omnipresent acceleration of all matter simultaneously... I agree it is hard to swallow; which is why I, personally, do away with the whole business.

Why haven't we hit the speed of light yet (which is impossible by laws of physics, which none of you have any grasp of)?

Just getting started it is hard to see or believe, but keep studying the subject and you will find that knowledge of physics and the history thereof is what leads to ideas like UA and many other aspects of flat earth research.  The lack thereof is what encourages to simply repeat what we are told, and worse - believe it.

There is no such thing as a vacuum, just a lower pressure.  There is always air in the chamber, and even theoretically - there can't NOT be.

Source?  What publication or paper states it's theoretically impossible to have an empty volume of space?  What are your references?

In a practical sense, you're not getting all the air out of a vacuum chamber - you can get almost all of it, but not every last molecule. But jack went and ruined that as a place to hang his hat by saying "even theoretically" so now I think to marry that up with reality we have to appeal to... quantum foam?

In a practical sense, you're not getting all the air out of a vacuum chamber - you can get almost all of it, but not every last molecule. But jack went and ruined that as a place to hang his hat by saying "even theoretically" so now I think to marry that up with reality we have to appeal to... quantum foam?

Interesting point with the quantum foam.  So the question would then be, statistically can there be a point, even just an instant where no particle pairs are being created and destroyed?  Depends on how fast and often they are created.  I have no idea.

Regardless, the quantum foam doesn't create air.  It's not popping entire atmospheres into existence, just electrons and positrons which alone can't make atoms let alone molecules.

There are many ways to conceptualize the answer.  They fall because they were lifted (and with only the energy that was used to lift them).  They fall to return to their "lowest energy state". They fall because the less dense media below them cannot support their weight.

But they all fail to address the issue/leave even more questions.
What if they are just pushed off an edge? Why does it take energy to lift them up, but not energy to push them down. Why does having them fall "release" that energy?
Why do they have weight that the media below need to support, rather than above?

Because that would be silly, and because it doesn't.

Things deciding to intrinsically fall up, or sideways, or in any other direction is no more silly than having them just fall down intrinsically.
There is no justification for the directional.
"Because it doesn't" provides nothing. You are saying it doesn't because it doesn't.

There is always air in the chamber, and even theoretically - there can't NOT be.

No, theoretically you can have a region completely devoid of air. It is practically impossible to achieve, but it is theoretically possible.
But what you then have to take the place of air are virtual particles.

Quote

As for buoyancy, that's just saying gravity again.

Only when you misunderstand what is being said

No, only when you understand that buoyancy is not an intrinsic property and instead is based upon a "force" trying to have the air/fluid fall.
This "force" is what causes the pressure gradient in the fluid which in turn causes the buoyant force.
As such, buoyancy is just saying gravity, or whatever causes things to fall.

Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter.

Again, the fact it varies across Earth shows it isn't.
Mass is the "intrinsic" property of matter and something acts on that to produce weight.

Presumably the same infinite and inexhaustible violation of the law of conservation that powers "gravitation's" omnipresent acceleration of all matter simultaneously.

So something nothing like gravity?
It is based entirely upon where the matter is, and if you bring matter closer together such as by allowing it to fall, then the amount of gravitational potential energy drops.
Once you bring 2 bits of matter together, you need to provide energy to separate them and allow them to fall back together.

Conversely with UA, it just continually accelerates with no limits provided.

but keep studying the subject and you will find that knowledge of physics and the history thereof is what leads to ideas like UA and many other aspects of flat earth research.  The lack thereof is what encourages to simply repeat what we are told, and worse - believe it.

Quite the opposite.
The lack thereof is what encourages people to simply reject what they have been told about the RE and accept ancient stories and the nonsense of conmen.
An actual study of physics and the like would lead any sane person to the inescapable fact that Earth is roughly a sphere

In a practical sense, you're not getting all the air out of a vacuum chamber - you can get almost all of it, but not every last molecule. But jack went and ruined that as a place to hang his hat by saying "even theoretically" so now I think to marry that up with reality we have to appeal to... quantum foam?

Lol, I never did like hats anyway.

You can interpret the theoretical musings a few ways.  Certainly one could "appeal" to quantum foam - which I generally wouldn't.

Another would be, conceptually related to the above, that empty space is never empty and we don't have a material or process that could achieve it even in potentia (neutrino shields anyone?)

Another, also related to the above, would be in the definition of "air", which always effectively includes things smaller than the gas we usually think of when speaking about it.

Yet another would be in the methodology currently employed to create vacuums (although potentially if we went about it another way, this might be addressed), which depends on the pressure of the gas within the chamber to evacuate it. It is perhaps most fundamentally this reason why no amount of pumping or strength of pump could ever fully evacuate a chamber - even theoretically.

We most all misunderstand (at some point in our lives anyhow, even if we know better now) why the liquid/matter travels up the straw because it seems so much like we are "sucking" it up.

Quote from: boydster on April 08, 2021, 04:29:50 PM

In a practical sense, you're not getting all the air out of a vacuum chamber - you can get almost all of it, but not every last molecule. But jack went and ruined that as a place to hang his hat by saying "even theoretically" so now I think to marry that up with reality we have to appeal to... quantum foam?

Lol, I never did like hats anyway.

You can interpret the theoretical musings a few ways.  Certainly one could "appeal" to quantum foam - which I generally wouldn't.

Another would be, conceptually related to the above, that empty space is never empty and we don't have a material or process that could achieve it even in potentia (neutrino shields anyone?)

Another, also related to the above, would be in the definition of "air", which always effectively includes things smaller than the gas we usually think of when speaking about it.

Yet another would be in the methodology currently employed to create vacuums (although potentially if we went about it another way, this might be addressed), which depends on the pressure of the gas within the chamber to evacuate it. It is perhaps most fundamentally this reason why no amount of pumping or strength of pump could ever fully evacuate a chamber - even theoretically.

We most all misunderstand (at some point in our lives anyhow, even if we know better now) why the liquid/matter travels up the straw because it seems so much like we are "sucking" it up.

Humans can't create a perfect vacuum, not yet anyway.

But there is no reason a theoretical vacuum can't exist. Care to elaborate on what 'smaller than the gas' is referring to? Please mention the actual particles you are talking about, details are kind of important. Atoms? Electrons? Tiny rotating wormholes?

Modern high vacuums are not created by sucking the air out with a straw. Look up things like mercury pumps and other methods that could, theoretically create a perfect vacuum.  It's just an engineering challenge, science doesn't say it's impossible.

Or go into interstellar space,

Even by the OPs retarded thinking, objects do not 'fall' down to hit the earth on their own. The Earth is pulled towards the object too.

What a dope. Does not even understand the laws of the own physics laws he champions. His claim that an object with continuous acceleration would exceed the speed of light eventually is another case in point

Quote from: Ski on April 08, 2021, 12:32:33 PM

That's on me, because despite the argumentative tone, he asked a simple question. I had moved it to Q&A.

I see. I hope you don't mind that I relocated it given the OP's clear intention to continue arguing about their passionate-but-misinformed interpretation of SR. But if you see fit to move it back, of course that is entirely up to you sir.

This is a recurring problem isn’t it. Maybe the Q&A section isn’t the best idea for a subject that is not only fundamentally contentious, but where even its proponents don’t agree on what the answers should be?  Personally, I’d just bin it.

Another, also related to the above, would be in the definition of "air", which always effectively includes things smaller than the gas we usually think of when speaking about it.

Only as the subatomic particles of what makes up air.
The radiation is taken to be passing through the air.

Yet another would be in the methodology currently employed to create vacuums

That would be practical, not theoretical.

It is perhaps most fundamentally this reason why no amount of pumping or strength of pump could ever fully evacuate a chamber - even theoretically.

Only with a fundamental misunderstanding of how gas works.
A key distinction is made between it acting as a gas, and acting as a collection of free moving particles which typically occurs some time around the point where the mean free path is comparable to the size of the chamber.

When it acts as a gas you take it as the pump is removing a small portion of the air and lowering the pressure accordingly.
Continuing with this will lead to a continually decreasing decline in pressure.

But in reality, it doesn't continue like that, and this is why we have different types of pumps.
At extremely low pressures, it acts like individual particles bouncing around, and each of those particles can hit the pump and be kicked out, it is just a matter of having them do so.
Think of it like a group of people running around in a room with a revolving door, which kicks them out on contact, but doesn't let anyone in.
Eventually, they can all bounce and hit the door and get kicked out.

So even based upon our current methods, it is hypothetically possible to remove all the air.

Quote from: boydster on April 08, 2021, 12:37:33 PM

Quote from: Ski on April 08, 2021, 12:32:33 PM

That's on me, because despite the argumentative tone, he asked a simple question. I had moved it to Q&A.

I see. I hope you don't mind that I relocated it given the OP's clear intention to continue arguing about their passionate-but-misinformed interpretation of SR. But if you see fit to move it back, of course that is entirely up to you sir.

This is a recurring problem isn’t it. Maybe the Q&A section isn’t the best idea for a subject that is not only fundamentally contentious, but where even its proponents don’t agree on what the answers should be?  Personally, I’d just bin it.

You are welcome to make a suggestion like this on the correct board so as not to clog up threads about different topics with your suggestions and/or concerns.