FE claim A single object cannot have two different speeds

But surely if I match the speed, speed becomes zero (like all the Round Earthers claim with their funny no acceleration models). No speed becomes momentum, and momentum causes skid.

I’m not sure that you understand what momentum is.  Actually, I’m pretty sure that you don’t have a th*rking clue.

Momentum is defined as mass * velocity.  Just because you have matched the velocity of the plane, that doesn’t mean that the velocity relative to the ground went away.  The mass part of momentum doesn’t really have anything to do with your ill advised attempt affect repairs on a moving airplane, only the velocity part.

I'm not sure you do.

Momentum is the tendency of kinetic energy to perpetuate.

I want you to get up
I want you to get up now
I want you to get dressed in a waitress uniform and heels
I want you to pick up a tray of dishes
I want you to run to a table at a full sprint
I want you to set down those dishes without slowing or stopping
I want you to try to turn around and get another set of dishes
I want you to set them down without slowing or stopping
I want you suddenly come to complete stop from a complete sprint

...Lemme know where you start to go wrong.

The mass part of momentum doesn’t really have anything to do with your ill advised attempt affect repairs on a moving airplane, only the velocity part.

I would say it does? You could probably do this sort of stunt on a rolling bicycle, but not a rolling car or plane.
You'd probably fail, but at least the bike wouldn't tend to crush you.

Momentum is the tendency of kinetic energy to perpetuate.

Sorta, but not really.  It's a measure of how much energy is in an object.  How long that energy perpetuates depends on external factors like how much friction the object encounters, whether it's going uphill, downhill or level, etc.

Yes, but momentum is sort of akin to an inertial free throw or bonus round.  It is a mistake to see it as "objects in motion stay in motion" because if that were true, you could hop on a ball rolling downhill and ride through town on it, but for Newton's (scoff) force weighing things down.

You get a certain amount of it based on the speed and mass, yes, but there is a limit. This limit is something that Newton's physics just ignores, and Einstein's physics just tries to explain around Newton's model with.


All I ask is 21 seconds of this video.

Einstein assumed Newton was right. But people like Noether, Clausius, Kelvin, and Nernst had a better grasp on how matter works (aside from Noether, the common point is thermodynamics and how energy is transferred, meaning you can't use an unbalanced water wheel to power a city). Energy is constantly transformed, and it the process, it is lost from the object that uses it to something else.

Now, I don't believe it stops (rather, it reverts to its density within the surface matrix, meaning an object heavy as ground falls to the ground), but this is a good video. Einstein's theory of relativity is more or less correct, but like many scientist before or after him, he was a fool not to consider that Newton may be mistaken about the forces that govern things like falling or motion. It talks about how Einstein imagined a window washer on the roof of the patent office falling, and how his wiper, the water bucket, the man's hat, and the man would remain fixed in place (like on a moving train) thanks to terminal velocity. "It would be as if gravity didn't exist," the video says. Yeah, because it doesn't.
The critique of the video that I would give is that I do not believe the universe is expanding, and they kinda play fast and loose with physics, saying that energy is lost. It's not lost, it's converted. Conversion energizes something else or breaks down the object.

Yes, but momentum is sort of akin to an inertial free throw or bonus round.  It is a mistake to see it as "objects in motion stay in motion" because if that were true, you could hop on a ball rolling downhill and ride through town on it, but for Newton's (scoff) force weighing things down.

You would be right if that's all that Newton's first law says.  Since it doesn't, you aren't.  You keep skipping over the "unless acted upon by an external force" part.  Friction is an external force.

You get a certain amount of it based on the speed and mass, yes, but there is a limit. This limit is something that Newton's physics just ignores, and Einstein's physics just tries to explain around Newton's model with.


All I ask is 21 seconds of this video.

I would ask that you watch the whole thing because I don't think that conservation symmetry breaking down over millions of years is quite the gotcha that you think it is,

Einstein assumed Newton was right. But people like Noether, Clausius, Kelvin, and Nernst had a better grasp on how matter works (aside from Noether, the common point is thermodynamics and how energy is transferred, meaning you can't use an unbalanced water wheel to power a city). Energy is constantly transformed, and it the process, it is lost from the object that uses it to something else.

The video didn't say anything about energy transfer or thermodynamics.  It was attributing the conservation symmetry breakdown to the expanding universe.

The fucking what? Aircraft don't use stagecoach type brakes. 'Tyre braking system' is just your fantasy

It's what's known as a thought experiment. We're not supposed to look at this,

and assume the brakes are like stagecoach.

Why? Why was the aircraft parked on a steep hill? Why would it spontaneously begin rolling?

Obviously, if we assume your RE that is constantly turning, then objects on a perfectly flat surface can just start rolling. 

Ahead or match?

The word 'ahead' should not have been there. You're trying to match speed with unequal momentum. Momentum being mass x velocity, the mass of an in-shape crew member is 150 lb or so? Times 5 mph. The plane's mass is... a bit more than that. This difference in momentum means things you try to fasten will roll or ricochet off.

Regardless of whether it's moving or not, it means nothing.

Trust me, even sitting still, working on a moving object is a slippery prospect. The other day, I had a black snake in our lawn that simply wouldn't bugger off, so I took the back end (it has an axe head) of my scyth and lopped off its head. Here's the thing: fish and snakes don't have a good rigor mortis impulse. So I had decided that if you kill something, you eat it, and I was preparing to chop it up. When it wriggled. I chopped off the neck and the tail figuring maybe without main nerve endings, it would stop. No. while putting it on a cutting board and getting a knife, the remaining body kept wanting to wriggle away. It was difficult to cut a moving object, even of lesser size while in motion. And I cut it in about quarters, but each piece wanted to move. I had to eventually freeze it slightly and rinse it in hot water to get it to quit squirming, so I could keep cutting as the bloody mass tried to roll off the cutting board on to the floor.. I was going to have nightmares. I tossed the head on our fire pit, but I dunno where it went.

Anyway, assuming something still and something moving is the same deal is wrong. It was pretty difficult to cut a critter that was still (alive?)

You are so fucking stupid, I hope you fucking die (as we say in Turkey)

Good to know that Turkey is one of those civilized countries that doesn't kill people at the drop of a hat. I was explaining if your tryin to chase a plane in motion and do in-motion repairs, the plane will kill you. And here I get what sounds like a death threat.

All I ask is 21 seconds of this video.

Wow. Bulma posts an interesting video.

Quite a lot about gravity and an expanding universe though.  Doesn’t seem to match any flat earth ideas I’ve ever heard of.

What did we learn from the first 21 seconds though? "An object in motion... oh wait, it stops."

Do I agree with its ultimate premise about gravity and the expanding universe? Mebbe not. Because I don't do the heat death model. {For the universe to continue expanding, energy must be supplied into the process, which undermines the premise of motion stopping. You cannot talk of the universe winding down due to expansion when expansion itself winds down. The universe will stop expanding, and become stable. That is, there is a fixed distance where expansion stops because of diminishing returns. At that point, energy instead goes into reactions on this Earth and such.} Do I like that Einstein is shown up and not called a genius? Oh yes.

What did we learn from the first 21 seconds though?

That you don’t care about making a consistent argument.  That you will happily take the conclusion of a mathematical model you claim is all bollocks and say it proves your own nonsense.

How do you know an object will slightly slow down over the course of millions of years?  Have you measured something over that timescale?  I think not, no one has.

It’s all based on maths you don’t understand for a universe you think doesn’t exist.  Based on our current understanding, which is incomplete anyway.

For all practical purposes conservation of momentum works just fine.  Including for putting satellites in orbit.

I care about using anything and everything that does agree with me, and discarding what doesn't.

You claim I worship at Eric Dubay's feet. But I don't care about this

nor this

nor this

nor this

I'm only incidentally interested in quoting what agrees with my own position.

"Well you quoted this, so you must accept their entire premise!"
Who says?

I did watch most of the video I quoted, but found the argument of the expanding universe weak and contradictory.

Catholics look at the Bible and ignore the bit where it says Jesus has brothers and sisters. Protestants ignore the bit where it says faith without works is dead. I ignore end times prophecy, since it is impossible to know (with several accounts of end times appearing to be later added) what is real or fake, and because I have seen more than my share of climate doomsayers. Heresy gets a bad rap, but to pick and choose (what the word heresy means) is a sign that you're using the free will that God gave you.

I care about using anything and everything that does agree with me, and discarding what doesn't.

Then how are you supposed to learn anything?

It’s not about learning, it’s about self-validation.

Quote

Then how are you supposed to learn anything?

It’s not about learning, it’s about self-validation.

I learn plenty every day.

There's a distinction between learning and accepting another's point of view.

For three days, I was in the Twelve Tribes cult. I learned from them why people join cults, and why they are cults and not religions. The cult offers an incomplete program, one that promises to fulfill the life, but something there  is strange. The cult either cuts itself off, funneling everything inward toward the leader, or attempts to funnel everything outward to some idea of altruism.

If you take someone else's word for it, you learn NOTHING. As I've observed from previous debates with you guys, where you're convinced knowledge is an object, and once you have it, you don't need to learn or grow. No, knowledge is a process that never ends. You have to decide what is outdated, what is false, what to accept or reject.

Otherwise, you fall for the cult that has one or two grains of truth. "Don't you feel lonely? (True) Wouldn't life be so much easier if you gave all possessions up? (False, because the cult leader isn't making the same sacrifice) Wouldn't thinks be easier if I told you what to believe? And do? (False, that's oppression)"

When you don't make any decisions, you aren't doing any learning. You're just accepting. Learning is about sifting through.
In Fullmetal Alchemist, they have three processes:
1. Comprehension
2. Deconstruction
3. Reconstruction
Learning is like that. You get what the person is trying to say. You pick it apart and see if it has merit to you. You put back together what does have merit, and leave the wreckage for some other alchemist to analyze.

Quote

Quote

Then how are you supposed to learn anything?

It’s not about learning, it’s about self-validation.

I learn plenty every day.

Not about physics.

I care about using anything and everything that does agree with me, and discarding what doesn't.

Confirmation bias (also confirmatory bias, myside bias, or congeniality bias) is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs, values, or decisions.  People display this bias when they select information that supports their views, ignoring contrary information or when they interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing attitudes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

It’s not usually something to be proud of.

The arguments you found weak and contradictory, that you discarded, are the maths and logic that led to the conclusion.  They aren’t separate things, they are the entire point.

You ought to look in the mirror.

First of all, confirmation bias is never learning anything, because you've already got it figured out. That's what you guys do. You already know the Earth is round and/or revolves about the sun. Any facts that don't match up are just ignored.

Second, what I do it subtly but significantly different from confirmation bias. I sort facts, even from opposing sources like that one about objects in motion stopping. There is a different term for this:

Critical thinking.

Confirmation bias is the tendency to favor information that confirms one's existing beliefs while ignoring contradictory evidence, which can hinder objective decision-making. In contrast, critical thinking involves analyzing facts and arguments to reach informed conclusions, requiring an awareness of biases like confirmation bias to ensure a more balanced perspective.

I sort through facts, and I reach conclusions. They don't match your conclusions? That's too bad. Maybe you ought to do more sorting yourself.

I offer you Flat Earth Eric so you can watch and decide for yourself. You always rehearse the same opinions about these videos. That's confirmation bias right there, dismissing anything out of hand that doesn't align. Do I expect you to come to the same conclusions as me? Nah. But not even giving the attempt is severely lacking critical thought.

They were weak and contradictory because they expressed that momentum is not infinite, that objects in motion slow to a stop. So the problem of that is you cannot have a universe that continues infinitely. Its expansion must slow to a manageable level. It shouldn't big crunch either, because this is infinite compression. Instead we have stability or a yoyo. This is how critical thinking works. We take the logic of arguments, and notice when "this doesn't match what you said."

You ought to look in the mirror.

What this means is that a satellite of another object is either moving around it while it is standing still, or chasing after it because it is moving. These are two different speeds.

Is a person walking around an airplane standing still on the flight deck of a moving aircraft carrier chasing after the airplane?  Or just walking around in their frame of reference

Is the person walking toward the airplane going to slam into it?

Is the person walking up to the airplane in the same direction the carrier is moving ever going to get to it? How else would the pilot get in. 

Not our problem that you either through ignorance or just being argumentative don’t understand. 

See, there's difference between sorting through facts and just rejecting ideas you don't like. You haven't learned anything since my last post.

Same tired argument.

See, there's difference between sorting through facts and just rejecting ideas you don't like. You haven't learned anything since my last post.

Same tired argument.

It’s fact you don’t understand or purposely butcher frame of reference.

Bulma.  Answer the question.

Is a person walking around an airplane standing still on the flight deck of a moving aircraft carrier chasing after the airplane?  Or just walking around in their frame of reference

I answered the question already.

Quote

The fucking what? Aircraft don't use stagecoach type brakes. 'Tyre braking system' is just your fantasy

It's what's known as a thought experiment. We're not supposed to look at this,

and assume the brakes are like stagecoach.

Quote

Why? Why was the aircraft parked on a steep hill? Why would it spontaneously begin rolling?

Obviously, if we assume your RE that is constantly turning, then objects on a perfectly flat surface can just start rolling. 

Quote

Ahead or match?

The word 'ahead' should not have been there. You're trying to match speed with unequal momentum. Momentum being mass x velocity, the mass of an in-shape crew member is 150 lb or so? Times 5 mph. The plane's mass is... a bit more than that. This difference in momentum means things you try to fasten will roll or ricochet off.

Quote

Regardless of whether it's moving or not, it means nothing.

Trust me, even sitting still, working on a moving object is a slippery prospect. The other day, I had a black snake in our lawn that simply wouldn't bugger off, so I took the back end (it has an axe head) of my scyth and lopped off its head. Here's the thing: fish and snakes don't have a good rigor mortis impulse. So I had decided that if you kill something, you eat it, and I was preparing to chop it up. When it wriggled. I chopped off the neck and the tail figuring maybe without main nerve endings, it would stop. No. while putting it on a cutting board and getting a knife, the remaining body kept wanting to wriggle away. It was difficult to cut a moving object, even of lesser size while in motion. And I cut it in about quarters, but each piece wanted to move. I had to eventually freeze it slightly and rinse it in hot water to get it to quit squirming, so I could keep cutting as the bloody mass tried to roll off the cutting board on to the floor.. I was going to have nightmares. I tossed the head on our fire pit, but I dunno where it went.

Anyway, assuming something still and something moving is the same deal is wrong. It was pretty difficult to cut a critter that was still (alive?)

Quote

You are so fucking stupid, I hope you fucking die (as we say in Turkey)

Good to know that Turkey is one of those civilized countries that doesn't kill people at the drop of a hat. I was explaining if your trying to chase a plane in motion and do in-motion repairs, the plane will kill you. And here I get what sounds like a death threat.

You just didn't like the answer so you made excuses about it.

Trying to move while on a moving  object is different from being disjointed from an object.

Picture this, your lover is trying to hand a letter to you from a moving train. You only need to walk to the nearest window. She has to practically run even at a slow speed.

L
You just didn't like the answer so you made excuses about it.

?

There are literally moons orbiting Jupiter where one can watch earth’s natural satellite the moon pass as it orbits and is seen with the unaided eye.
 
It’s fact you don’t understand or purposely butcher frame of reference.

Bulma.  Answer the question.

Is a person walking around an airplane standing still on the flight deck of a moving aircraft carrier chasing after the airplane?  Or just walking around in their frame of reference

 

Planets are not what you think they are. Stars are not what you think they are.

Why should I answer your questions like a chicken thief, when I have done nothing wrong?

You got an answer, let's hear it. My answer is that Jupiter is a "wandering star" and I don't care  about its fake moons.

Again, you don't like the answer (that there is a difference between chasing a train as it is starting up, and being on a train). So nothing I say matters to you.

Planets are not what you think they are.

Which still has nothing to do with Jupiter having moons that orbit Jupiter.  Where you can watch earth’s natural satellite the moon pass overhead in orbit with the unaided eye.

Bulma.  Answer the question.

Is a person walking around an airplane standing still on the flight deck of a moving aircraft carrier chasing after the airplane?  Or just walking around in their frame of reference

Because you have to lie what Jupiter is, which has nothing to do with millions of people with telescopes for centuries have watched the moons of Jupiter, or because you don’t understand frame of reference isn’t our problem.