GPS satellites???

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

Quote from: "zach3792"

but gravity exists so that makes you retarded!!!!!!!!!PUT YOUR HELMET ON AND GET BACK IN THE CAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Prove it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  GET YOUR "SHIFT" and "1" KEY UNSTUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I jump....but then I fall to the ground. Without gravity? What would cause this effect?

Do you know of the equivalence principle?  Didn't think so.

Acceleration.

Acceleration.

wrong. actually it's "negative deceleration"

:roll:

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

Acceleration.

wrong. actually it's "negative deceleration"

You should do comedy; next you'll be trying to convince me of the centrifugal force in inertial reference frames!

Quote from: "Ezkerraldean"

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

Acceleration.

wrong. actually it's "negative deceleration"

You should do comedy; next you'll be trying to convince me of the centrifugal force in inertial reference frames!

But BOG... We know that's all true! It's just... not what it seems! :wink:

Quote from: "edlloyd"

I jump....but then I fall to the ground. Without gravity? What would cause this effect?

Close. You jump, and the Earth rushes up to meet you.

At what rate does the earth accelerate.

When say acelerate? Do u mean move or do you mean its accelerating it's in speed?

Woot! I made your sig! I take that as a complement.

And it IS like conversing with a magic 8 ball! Whatever you say... it spins around and some ridiculous answer pops out. Props on the entertainment value, though.

Quote from: "edlloyd"

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

Quote from: "zach3792"

but gravity exists so that makes you retarded!!!!!!!!!PUT YOUR HELMET ON AND GET BACK IN THE CAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Prove it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  GET YOUR "SHIFT" and "1" KEY UNSTUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I jump....but then I fall to the ground. Without gravity? What would cause this effect?

Do you know of the equivalence principle?  Didn't think so.

The delopment of the equivalence principle let to the theory of gravity? Did it not?

Quote from: "Rick_James"

Quote from: "edlloyd"

I jump....but then I fall to the ground. Without gravity? What would cause this effect?

Close. You jump, and the Earth rushes up to meet you.

At what rate does the earth accelerate.

When say acelerate? Do u mean move or do you mean its accelerating it's in speed?

From the FAQ: The Earth is accelerating upwards at 1g (9.8m/s-2)

I don't understand the second queston.

Quote from: "edlloyd"

Quote from: "Rick_James"

Quote from: "edlloyd"

I jump....but then I fall to the ground. Without gravity? What would cause this effect?

Close. You jump, and the Earth rushes up to meet you.

At what rate does the earth accelerate.

When say acelerate? Do u mean move or do you mean its accelerating it's in speed?

From the FAQ: The Earth is accelerating upwards at 1g (9.8m/s-2)

I don't understand the second queston.

Forgive me...I dont undestand the maths.

Is this 1g (9.8m/s-2) the speed or the rate of acceleration at which earth moves?

I believe it is the rate of acceleration. Which is what you asked.

I believe it is the rate of acceleration. Which is what you asked.

So do you know at what speed the earth is moving now?

Surely the faster it goes, the heavier we will become.

If it continues to accelerate, it would eventually reach the speed of light. Which is impossible

Quote from: "edlloyd"

Quote from: "Rick_James"

Quote from: "edlloyd"

I jump....but then I fall to the ground. Without gravity? What would cause this effect?

Close. You jump, and the Earth rushes up to meet you.

At what rate does the earth accelerate.

When say acelerate? Do u mean move or do you mean its accelerating it's in speed?

From the FAQ: The Earth is accelerating upwards at 1g (9.8m/s-2)

I don't understand the second queston.

You give what I asked? What did you not understand about my second question then?

Quote from: "Rick_James"

I believe it is the rate of acceleration. Which is what you asked.

So do you know at what speed the earth is moving now?

Surely the faster it goes, the heavier we will become.

If it continues to accelerate, it would eventually reach the speed of light. Which is impossible

Ok, now you're defintely getting into stuff that's already been covered.

1)I personally am unaware of the Earth's current speed.

2) Not in our frame of reference

3) The closer we get to the speed of light (from someone else's frame of reference - obviously we can't observe the constant acceleration from ours)the more our acceleration drops off. We can never reach the speed of light, but we are forever getting closer.

Quote from: "edlloyd"

Quote from: "Rick_James"

I believe it is the rate of acceleration. Which is what you asked.

So do you know at what speed the earth is moving now?

Surely the faster it goes, the heavier we will become.

If it continues to accelerate, it would eventually reach the speed of light. Which is impossible

Ok, now you're defintely getting into stuff that's already been covered.

1)I personally am unaware of the Earth's current speed.

2) Not in our frame of reference

3) The closer we get to the speed of light (from someone else's frame of reference - obviously we can't observe the constant acceleration from ours)the more our acceleration drops off. We can never reach the speed of light, but we are forever getting closer.

It's a discussion board. Things will get recovered when they is you can't back an argument.

Does any FE know the speed at which we travel now? How do you know we are travelling now is there is no reference? If it was accelerating, then the time it took me to jump and come to the earth would be longer than if I did it again in a years time. Yes, I fall to the earth, because the earth is accelerating, u say.

"obviously we can't observe the constant acceleration from ours" - So how do you know we are accelerating then?

Does anyone FE have proof for this?

And why did they say we can't reach the speed of light? Answer me that, and that would surely flaw your acceleration theory.

It's a discussion board. Things will get recovered when they is you can't back an argument.

Does any FE know the speed at which we travel now? How do you know we are travelling now is there is no reference? If it was accelerating, then the time it took me to jump and come to the earth would be longer than if I did it again in a years time. Yes, I fall to the earth, because the earth is accelerating, u say.

"obviously we can't observe the constant acceleration from ours" - So how do you know we are accelerating then?

Does anyone FE have proof for this?

And why did they say we can't reach the speed of light? Answer me that, and that would surely flaw your acceleration theory.

We're clearly accelerating, because if you jump in the air, you don't go flying off the earth as you would if we were travelling at a constant speed.  I don't think it would take longer a year later, because your frame of reference hasn't changed.

We can't reach the speed of light, because from an external point of reference, our mass increases as we accelerate, needing more energy to mantain the acceleration. Therefore our acceleration decreases (to an external point of reference) the closer we get to the speed of light, meaning we can never reach it.

Of course we can't observe our fading acceleration due to our point of reference.

Quote from: "edlloyd"

It's a discussion board. Things will get recovered when they is you can't back an argument.

Does any FE know the speed at which we travel now? How do you know we are travelling now is there is no reference? If it was accelerating, then the time it took me to jump and come to the earth would be longer than if I did it again in a years time. Yes, I fall to the earth, because the earth is accelerating, u say.

"obviously we can't observe the constant acceleration from ours" - So how do you know we are accelerating then?

Does anyone FE have proof for this?

And why did they say we can't reach the speed of light? Answer me that, and that would surely flaw your acceleration theory.

We're clearly accelerating, because if you jump in the air, you don't go flying off the earth as you would if we were travelling at a constant speed.  I don't think it would take longer a year later, because your frame of reference hasn't changed.

We can't reach the speed of light, because from an external point of reference, our mass increases as we accelerate, needing more energy to mantain the acceleration. Therefore our acceleration decreases (to an external point of reference) the closer we get to the speed of light, meaning we can never reach it.

Of course we can't observe our fading acceleration due to our point of reference.

Surely u could only say I fall because the earth moves, not accelerates. Your logic cant proving its accelerating. If it was accelerating, a kg would wiegh more on the scales a year later - "our mass increases as we accelerate, needing more energy to mantain the acceleration"

And the only thing you have to I fall to the ground is because the earth is actually moving doesnt hold upto the theory of gravity, which supports Einstein, who u seem, seem to support.

Surely u could only say I fall because the earth moves, not accelerates. Your logic cant proving its accelerating. If it was accelerating, a kg would wiegh more on the scales a year later - "our mass increases as we accelerate, needing more energy to mantain the acceleration"

And the only thing you have to I fall to the ground is because the earth is actually moving doesnt hold upto the theory of gravity, which supports Einstein, who u seem, seem to support.

Dude, can you please proof read your posts? there parts in all of them that make no sense.

As I said in my previous post, if we were travelling at a constant speed, you jumping would result in you going a higher speed, and not falling back to Earth at all. However, because you do fall back to earth, your reference frame reverts back to what it was, so the earth would rush up to meet you at the same speed as previously.

Our mass only increases from an external perspective. A Kg weighs a Kg every year.

I don't understand the Einstein paragraph.

Quote from: "edlloyd"

Surely u could only say I fall because the earth moves, not accelerates. Your logic cant proving its accelerating. If it was accelerating, a kg would wiegh more on the scales a year later - "our mass increases as we accelerate, needing more energy to mantain the acceleration"

And the only thing you have to I fall to the ground is because the earth is actually moving doesnt hold upto the theory of gravity, which supports Einstein, who u seem, seem to support.

Dude, can you please proof read your posts? there parts in all of them that make no sense.

As I said in my previous post, if we were travelling at a constant speed, you jumping would result in you going a higher speed, and not falling back to Earth at all. However, because you do fall back to earth, your reference frame reverts back to what it was, so the earth would rush up to meet you at the same speed as previously.

Our mass only increases from an external perspective. A Kg weighs a Kg every year.

I don't understand the Einstein paragraph.

Apologies for my slight dyslexia. What part did you not understand, I shall translate for you.

"As I said in my previous post, if we were travelling at a constant speed, you jumping would result in you going a higher speed" Not if earth was travelling faster than I was? I must jump about what 5mph into the air? Does the earth not travel at least 5mph? How many miles do it accelerate by then?

Apologies for my slight dyslexia. What part did you not understand, I shall translate for you.

"As I said in my previous post, if we were travelling at a constant speed, you jumping would result in you going a higher speed" Not if earth was travelling faster than I was? I must jump about what 5mph into the air? Does the earth not travel at least 5mph? How many miles do it accelerate by then?

As I said, I didn't understand the Einstein paragraph. No need to apologise, I just want to be able to answer your questions (if i can).

What I'm saying, is that if the earth (with no gravity) is travelling at a steady 1000kms/h (obviously an example number), and you jumped at 5km/h into the air, you would then be going 1005 kms/h, and therefore would be going faster than the earth. Being that the earth was travelling at a constant speed, you would pull away from it. Howver, the earth rushes up to meet you, in the same time, everytime, so we're clearly accelerating.

Quote from: "edlloyd"

Apologies for my slight dyslexia. What part did you not understand, I shall translate for you.

"As I said in my previous post, if we were travelling at a constant speed, you jumping would result in you going a higher speed" Not if earth was travelling faster than I was? I must jump about what 5mph into the air? Does the earth not travel at least 5mph? How many miles do it accelerate by then?

As I said, I didn't understand the Einstein paragraph. No need to apologise, I just want to be able to answer your questions (if i can).

What I'm saying, is that if the earth (with no gravity) is travelling at a steady 1000kms/h (obviously an example number), and you jumped at 5km/h into the air, you would then be going 1005 kms/h, and therefore would be going faster than the earth. Being that the earth was travelling at a constant speed, you would pull away from it. Howver, the earth rushes up to meet you, in the same time, everytime, so we're clearly accelerating.

Would it not be because I lose momentum then?

And  what of sky divers and terminal velocity? How could planes fly straight across? They would have to fly like how helicopters, do.

Would it not be because I lose momentum then?

And  what of sky divers and terminal velocity? How could planes fly straight across? They would have to fly like how helicopters, do.

That's my understanding of it anyway. I don't profess to be any sort of expert.

Sky divers jump out of the plane, then the Earth rushes up to meet them. Planes fly as per normal.

Quote from: "edlloyd"

Would it not be because I lose momentum then?

And  what of sky divers and terminal velocity? How could planes fly straight across? They would have to fly like how helicopters, do.

That's my understanding of it anyway. I don't profess to be any sort of expert.

Sky divers jump out of the plane, then the Earth rushes up to meet them. Planes fly as per normal.

How could a plane fly normal though and not be rushed by the ground? And why do sky divers reach terminal velocity?

Quote from: "Rick_James"

Quote from: "edlloyd"

Would it not be because I lose momentum then?

And  what of sky divers and terminal velocity? How could planes fly straight across? They would have to fly like how helicopters, do.

That's my understanding of it anyway. I don't profess to be any sort of expert.

Sky divers jump out of the plane, then the Earth rushes up to meet them. Planes fly as per normal.

How could a plane fly normal though and not be rushed by the ground? And why do sky divers reach terminal velocity?

Planes fly using the same physics the would on RE - as they are in the Earth's frame of reference.

Sky divers reach terminal velocity because the Earth can't rush towards them any faster.

Quote from: "edlloyd"

Quote from: "Rick_James"

Quote from: "edlloyd"

Would it not be because I lose momentum then?

And  what of sky divers and terminal velocity? How could planes fly straight across? They would have to fly like how helicopters, do.

That's my understanding of it anyway. I don't profess to be any sort of expert.

Sky divers jump out of the plane, then the Earth rushes up to meet them. Planes fly as per normal.

How could a plane fly normal though and not be rushed by the ground? And why do sky divers reach terminal velocity?

Planes fly using the same physics the would on RE - as they are in the Earth's frame of reference.

Sky divers reach terminal velocity because the Earth can't rush towards them any faster.

Right...I'm gonna this beer, go outside in the freezing and have a fag (ciggerette for you non English), whilst looking at the stars.

Why do stars twinkle and not the sun?

Why do stars twinkle and not the sun?

For the same reason as in RE.

Ok, the earth is accelerating at 9.81m/s^2.  When you jump off the ground, you have added to your velocity, but you are no longer accelerating.  The earth still is.  The earth simply accelerates up to your new velocity.  

Aircraft must produce lift in order to stay aloft.  As long as they are producing an upwards acceleration of 9.81m/s^2, they are not getting any closer to the ground.  

Terminal velocity is reached when the drag force of the air on the skydiver equals the acceleration of the earth.  He is still falling, just no longer accelerating.  The atmosphere is pushed along with the earth.

Quote from: "edlloyd"

Why do stars twinkle and not the sun?

For the same reason as in RE.

What reason is that then?

I just had a ciggy outside and the moon was half lite. It was not twinkling, but the stars were.

How do you also explain hayley's comet as well?

Ok, the earth is accelerating at 9.81m/s^2.  When you jump off the ground, you have added to your velocity, but you are no longer accelerating.  The earth still is.  The earth simply accelerates up to your new velocity.  

Aircraft must produce lift in order to stay aloft.  As long as they are producing an upwards acceleration of 9.81m/s^2, they are not getting any closer to the ground.

A plane would only stay a flight it was facing away from the earth, IE, straight up. Its flying horizonatal to the earth, the earth would be moving upwards to meet it.