41

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zetetic method vs UA

« on: October 02, 2020, 07:30:31 PM »

So again, in my 2 scenarous, sealed in a tube, one falling and the other the floor rushing up, that is the same?  You are telling me I would feel the same exact sensations?

No, I already told you what the missing link was in your scenarios. In the "floor rushing up" scenario, you neglected to include the fact that the observer would have to be accelerating upwards prior to being released.

You also seem to discount the bodies ability to detect a change in velocity, at least until Tom Bs version came out.  Dishonest.

I never did that. If you think I did, you misunderstood. If you're going to accuse me of being dishonest when the issue is simply your misunderstanding of the very physics RET relies on, there is no point in further discussion.

If you don't want to be helped, nobody will be able to help you. This stuff is difficult, and I'm happy to help you work through it, but you're gonna have to try and work with me.

Agree I did miss that part about the tube accelerating upwards.   See the reply to Tom B, case closed as far as I am concerned.   Again that is why I come here, aside from obvious trolling in AR, its a good thought exercise. 

42

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zetetic method vs UA

« on: October 02, 2020, 07:28:08 PM »

Exactly as I said.  "I can testify that one can't feel freefall. "  We are not talking freefall, we are talking about transition to freefall.

There is a transition under UA. The Earth is pushing up the atmosphere. The plane is riding on the atmosphere via lift. The floor of the plane is pushing and accelerating you upwards.

When you jump out you will transition from being accelerated upwards to zero acceleration (ignoring air resistance), as you are no longer connected to the floor of the plane.

I like where you are going with this.    You are saying I am experiencing deceleration and not acceleration?   Fascinating logic I did not consider. 

What I don't like about that answer is that it ignores mass.   Since terminal velocity is the point where drag overcomes the acceleration of mass, how could that explain the fall rates of same sized objects of differing mass?  Object of the same mass but differing drag is an easy explanation.

Real world example:   In relative work, a skydive thing where people do what amounts to tricks with each other, fall rates matter.  The guys I jumped with were fairly stocky.  Being tall and thin, I would wear a weight vest of up to 15 lbs to keep up with their fall rate.   How could your explanation account for the change in terminal velocity when I was 15 lbs heavier yet maintained the same drag if not a tiny bit more based on the profile of the vest? 

Assuming that the air is indeed pushed via UA there would have to be something to keep the air from going over the edge.   A wall or dome perhaps?  But, if that is the case, why would there be air pressure differences at differing altitudes?  I just started thinking about this so forgive me asking what could be obvious questions. 

Again the usefulness of this site to me is as a thought experiment.

Well, this is related to what I posted about different masses falling at the same rate. There isn't a fall difference with bodies of different masses in a vacuum. All bodies fall at the same rate regardless of mass in a vacuum.

The reason why heavier things fall faster in the atmosphere is because of air resistance. It requires more force from air particles to move a more massive object.

When you jump out of the plane the earth is still accelerating upwards. It is pushing up the atmosphere. The air is rushing up against you. While in free fall you are otherwise weightless and the atmospheric resistance is pushing you upwards. It takes more force to move a more massive object, so it will push heavier and lighter objects differently.

Good explanation, I'll accept that with all the enthusiasm that a minute of thinking about it can muster.  I don't see any holes in it

To recap your explanations, the feeling of falling is just a sense of velocity change due to slowing, not speeding up. (The same thing as far as acceleration is concerned) The difference in the fall rates for objects of the same drag but differing mass is the amount of work by the moving air.

Sounds like a wiki entry to me. 

43

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zetetic method vs UA

« on: October 02, 2020, 07:14:35 PM »

So you are telling me to belive the text and not my own senses?   Zetetic methodology be damned?

There are two things here:

• Your own senses do not contradict the text. You don't have to choose between the two.
• Yes, fanatical Zeteticism is just as bad as fanatical anything else.

Point #1 is the one to pay attention to, mainly. You are presenting the same scenario twice using different words, and claiming that there is a difference. There isn't. Your intuition is failing you (and I don't blame you for it - relativity is unintuitive. Many things about our surroundings aren't intuitive, that's why it took humanity thousands of years to figure them out), and you're refusing to patch up the gaps in your understanding, just defaulting to a response of "nuh uh i know what i felt". If you don't want to be helped, nobody will be able to help you.

You might have missed this in my OP but I have not found the exact quote from Einstein, got it handy?  In his examples, who and where were the observers that could not tell a difference?

It's not a "quote", it's a principle of physics. RE gravitational mass is identical to inertial mass. You'll find comprehensive descriptions of it in any high school physics textbook, and on Wikipedia.

"nuh uh i know what i felt"

LOL, really?  So much for polite debate. 

In the last post you said "Once again - thanks to the Equivalence Principle, we know there would be no physical difference between the two scenarios."   Like you said, if you will not listen no one can help you.  There is a huge physical difference in the question of what is moving, me or the floor.  Saying I am denying basic physics is a BS excuse for not addressing the actual questions, it is way more of a "nuh uh" than I did.

So again, in my 2 scenarous, sealed in a tube, one falling and the other the floor rushing up, that is the same?  You are telling me I would feel the same exact sensations?   

You also seem to discount the bodies ability to detect a change in velocity, at least until Tom Bs version came out.  Dishonest.  Had you presented that like he did it would be different.   

44

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zetetic method vs UA

« on: October 02, 2020, 06:58:33 PM »

If I am suspended in the air and the floor starts rushing up there is not device in the inner ear to sense that floor moving.

Indeed - if you weren't accelerating in the first place (i.e. no UA and no gravity - a scenario neither of us should be considering). If you were, and you were suddenly released, you would sense deceleration due to inertia.

Once again - thanks to the Equivalence Principle, we know there would be no physical difference between the two scenarios. Every time you think you found a difference, you are necessarily wrong, unless you want to discard basic physics. Note that discarding basic physics immediately disproves RET, and thus doesn't advance your goal.

So you are telling me to belive the text and not my own senses?   Zetetic methodology be damned? 

Also please take a crack at my freefall speed changes by mass changes question.   The bottom line is I fell a lot faster with the added mass of a weight vest with marginally more drag.

You might have missed this in my OP but I have not found the exact quote from Einstein, got it handy?  In his examples, who and where were the observers that could not tell a difference?

And I have no other goal but to think different ideas through and so far it is not convincing. 

45

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zetetic method vs UA

« on: October 02, 2020, 06:43:27 PM »

while saying there is no feeling of falling

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that your interpretation of that feeling is overly specific, and poorly defined.

"Does the inner ear sense acceleration or not?" seems to be the real and pertinent question.

It's not pertinent at all. It blatantly does sense acceleration, relative to the ear itself. The problem with your logic is that that acceleration does not change in any way between the two scenarios.

That is plainly wrong.  If I am suspended in the air and the floor starts rushing up there is no device in the inner ear to sense that floor moving.  In fact if I was in a sealed tube that blocked all vision, hearing, and airflow I would not even know the floor was coming at me.  If however I was suddenly dropped for the same point towards the floor the inner ear would know and tell me so.   

46

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zetetic method vs UA

« on: October 02, 2020, 06:34:18 PM »

If the same experiment had me drop towards that floor my inner ear would detect the change.

This is incorrect. You have to compare two scenarios:

• You jump off a plane and accelerate to terminal velocity.
• You're suspended in the air while weightless, and a fan blows upward at you with increasing speed unless the air around you reaches the equivalent of your terminal velocity.

The two must be indistinguishable, because physics. Again, the question isn't of how the human body functions, or what you perceive. It's also not a RE vs FE question. The two scenarios are physically identical.

Any takers, report if you feel yourself falling.

You continue to miss the point. You would "feel yourself falling" (a vague term with no meaningful definition) in both scenarios. You're doubling down on what you find intuitive, which is human nature, but there is no justification in physics for why the two would feel any different.

What would your body sense when that trap door is instantaneously released?

RE: Acceleration due to gravitation
FE: Deceleration (i.e. acceleration) due to inertia

So on one hand you say that I feel "Deceleration (i.e. acceleration) due to inertia" while saying there is no feeling of falling, again a paraphrase of sensing acceleration?  "Does the inner ear sense acceleration or not?" seems to be the real and pertinent question.

Tom B is being more consistent.

47

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zetetic method vs UA

« on: October 02, 2020, 06:28:38 PM »

Exactly as I said.  "I can testify that one can't feel freefall. "  We are not talking freefall, we are talking about transition to freefall.

There is a transition under UA. The Earth is pushing up the atmosphere. The plane is riding on the atmosphere via lift. The floor of the plane is pushing and accelerating you upwards.

When you jump out you will transition from being accelerated upwards to zero acceleration (ignoring air resistance), as you are no longer connected to the floor of the plane.

I like where you are going with this.    You are saying I am experiencing deceleration and not acceleration?   Fascinating logic I did not consider. 

What I don't like about that answer is that it ignores mass.   Since terminal velocity is the point where drag overcomes the acceleration of mass, how could that explain the fall rates of same sized objects of differing mass?  Object of the same mass but differing drag is an easy explanation.

Real world example:   In relative work, a skydive thing where people do what amounts to tricks with each other, fall rates matter.  The guys I jumped with were fairly stocky.  Being tall and thin, I would wear a weight vest of up to 15 lbs to keep up with their fall rate.   How could your explanation account for the change in terminal velocity when I was 15 lbs heavier yet maintained the same drag if not a tiny bit more based on the profile of the vest? 

Assuming that the air is indeed pushed via UA there would have to be something to keep the air from going over the edge.   A wall or dome perhaps?  But, if that is the case, why would there be air pressure differences at differing altitudes?  I just started thinking about this so forgive me asking what could be obvious questions. 





Again the usefulness of this site to me is as a thought experiment. 

48

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zetetic method vs UA

« on: October 02, 2020, 05:55:15 PM »

Damn, I hate it when the obvious is right in front of me.

Here is an experiment that anyone can do.   Go to an amusement park and get on one of the tower drop rides.   If you have been on one you know you damn near spit your guts out your mouth when it drops.   There is one, in Orlando I think, that is an elevator, you are in an enclosed room so to speak when it drops. 

Any takers, report if you feel yourself falling.


Note:  Record number of typo edits.

49

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zetetic method vs UA

« on: October 02, 2020, 05:47:06 PM »

What we sense is a velocity change relative to our current velocity vector.

All velocity is relative to a frame of reference. This isn't a question of what you do and don't find convincing, or what you do or don't feel, it's a physical fact. You have a velocity vector relative to the air. This is the same as the air having a velocity vector relative to you. The two aren't just indistinguishable, they're precisely the same.

Once again - there is no physical difference between stating that the Earth and air are accelerating up towards you, and stating that you are accelerating towards the Earth. That's the frustration with your argument. You're basically saying "It's not apples, it's apples!"

So no, I am not convinced.  Again not from youtube videos, or literature, but direct observation.

Your direct observation is that your velocity relative to your surroundings changes. This is not in conflict with UA.

If I was suspended in a fixed spot and the floor was rushing up to me, I could not tell the difference between that and being in freefall toward the same floor assuming relative wind was the same in both cases.   If the same experiment had me drop towards that floor my inner ear would detect the change.  Unless we are debating about function of the inner ear, I don't see your point.

50

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zetetic method vs UA

« on: October 02, 2020, 05:33:01 PM »

Why did I, again pure Zetetic observation, feel the acceleration?

I've said this before, but I feel you misunderstood. The term "feeling acceleration" is extremely vague - it's a term you've created to make a sensation seem intuitive. What you actually perceive is your acceleration relative to the air around you. Because motion is always relative, this is exactly the same as the air accelerating relative to you - there is no universal frame of reference from which you could distinguish the two. That is the sticking point - you feel "the acceleration", but there is no objective answer as to what's accelerating relative to what.

Because motion is relative, you could also completely rephrase UA to mean something like "anything other than sufficiently massive celestial bodies is accelerating downwards at 9.81m/s² relative to the otherwise stationary bodies". Physically, the two are one and the same. All that changes is the frame of reference you chose.

Perhaps a different thought experiment will help here. Try to imagine the sensation of your body being held down in a river, well under the surface. Imagine how the water would feel against your body. Now, imagine a separate situation. You're submerged in water which is not flowing, like a lake, and you're being pulled through the water.

Without external information, you would not be able to tell the difference by the sensation alone. This is exactly the same here.

And yes, your comment about Einstein is correct. According to the Equivalence Principle, it MUST be the case that you won't be able to tell the two apart. Basic physics would break if this wasn't the case.

Thanks for the thoughtful response.  Due to the obvious climate we live in, I am just done with arguing but a polite debate is always welcome.

I did not create the term, I paraphrased it... from the Wikipedia on Falling (sensation)

A sensation of falling occurs when the labyrinth or vestibular apparatus, a system of fluid-filled passages in the inner ear, detects changes in acceleration

To be more clear I should have said "detecting changes in acceleration" instead of  "feeling acceleration".

I have googled and not found Einstein's direct quote but I see a lot of interpretations.   One is the Elevator cable breaking.  I submit from my direct observations that you would indeed sense the acceleration.  One almost all of us have experienced is turbulence in an airplane.  A common turbulence situation is an aircraft loses lift and you feel it.  No air movement.  Not external references.  You just feel it.   As part of pilot training, learning to recover from a stall is standard practice.  If you have ever been in a stalled aircraft you felt it too. 


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falling_(sensation)

you feel "the acceleration", but there is no objective answer as to what's accelerating relative to what

What we sense is a velocity change relative to our current velocity vector.  The inner ear is made to do just that, without that you couldn't walk, jump or do much else besides lay there.  People with inner ear problems sometimes report that feeling of falling, for the ear to falsly report that would suggest that it is a real feeling for a real purpose.

So no, I am not convinced.  Again not from youtube videos, or literature, but direct observation.

51

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zetetic method vs UA

« on: October 02, 2020, 04:56:34 PM »

The feeling of free-fall is the feeling of weightlessness, not acceleration.

In this example the balloon reverts to its relaxed state while in free-fall.



In a Zero-G plane the craft is in free-fall and its occupants feel weightless.

Exactly as I said.  "I can testify that one can't feel freefall. "  We are not talking freefall, we are talking about transition to freefall.

52

Flat Earth Theory / Zetetic method vs UA

« on: October 02, 2020, 04:03:53 PM »

Pete and I have discussed this a few times, with his trump card always being something along the lines of proving Einstein wrong.  Something never seemed right about falling vs acceleration and using the Zetetic method I now know why.     Having 920ish skydives and a Master D license,  I can testify that one can't feel freefall.  Terminal velocity ( the result of mass vs drag) feels like floating.  In a run of the mill skydive, one exits the aircraft around 90 mph and over 9 seconds accelerates to terminal velocity.  Basically transitioning from 90ish to 120ish (terminal is not a constant) over 9 seconds is a pretty tame experience.  No feeling of falling   What is the sticking point in my head is that we can feel the acceleration of a jump from a stationary or near stationary start point, hot air balloon, helicopter, cutting away a low-speed malfunction and even stalling the canopy.  You jump out of a balloon and you feel the acceleration.  Not being a fan of negative G, I hated doing stalls.  I can think of no better Zetetic evidence that UA is false.  Pure observation.   

Why did I, again pure Zetetic observation, feel the acceleration?    Occam's Razor would say I was falling, not witnessing the earth coming at me.

53

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: October 01, 2020, 05:40:48 PM »

Slavery was promoted by democrats, FYI. Democrats have always been very racist.

One day Tom, you will step in to the light of honesty and accept that the Dems of two centuries ago are not the same the Dems now.  Same with the GOP.  Until that day, godspeed you silly, silly boy.

Nope. It's a consistent trend. Democrats have been historically pro-slavery, anti-women's rights, and against civil rights. It is the republicans who were anti-slavery, pro-women's rights and pro-civil rights.

I see you are at least consistent in using ages old information as proof of anything.

54

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Tucker Carlson shouldn't be believed - Fox News Lawyers

« on: October 01, 2020, 03:10:31 PM »

As far as I understand, that's a common line of defence for some of the more colourful opinion sources in America. Alex Jones tried something similar during a custody battle with his ex-wife

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/infowars-alex-jones-performance-artist-playing-character-lawyer-conspiracy-theory-donald-trump-a7687571.html

The problem is an ethical one in that, unlike the Daily Show or something similar, someone like Tucker Carlson presents himself as a serious journalist. There aren’t disclaimers or obvious contextual clues to indicate that he shouldn’t be trusted.

I trust The Daily Show over Fox anyday.

With Jon Stewart the daily show was a must watch,  Now its just  as shadow of its former self.

55

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Tucker Carlson shouldn't be believed - Fox News Lawyers

« on: September 30, 2020, 05:37:17 PM »

As far as I understand, that's a common line of defence for some of the more colourful opinion sources in America. Alex Jones tried something similar during a custody battle with his ex-wife

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/infowars-alex-jones-performance-artist-playing-character-lawyer-conspiracy-theory-donald-trump-a7687571.html

The problem is an ethical one in that, unlike the Daily Show or something similar, someone like Tucker Carlson presents himself as a serious journalist. There aren’t disclaimers or obvious contextual clues to indicate that he shouldn’t be trusted.

The crux of the problem is people confuse commentary and entertainment with news.   MSNBC, CNN, FOX...  pure commentary and entertainment and no news.

56

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Are the American police out of control?

« on: September 25, 2020, 07:16:13 PM »

https://twitter.com/kholmeslive/status/1309355842018238464?s=21

Keep a CCW in your cars, folks.

And don’t drive your vehicle in to a crowd of people either.

Lot of isntances where crowds surronded a vehicle.  Floria is making it legal to run in these cases even if you run over someone.  Smart move

57

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes

« on: September 24, 2020, 04:30:09 PM »

Sadly this is not a joke, the sane ones in the middle see this!

58

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How come you’re able to see both the sun and moon in the sky at the same time?

« on: September 18, 2020, 07:45:26 PM »

Help, can any provide me with an answer to my friend who said " I left NY on a cruise ship and noticed as we sailed away the high rise buildings were disappearing gradually from the bottom and could only see the top floors. that proves the earth is round." I told him I would explain that the next time we meet. Would someone be kind enough to help. kind Regards, paul

Read the wiki, this is covered

59

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: NASA claims Flat and Fake Apollo Missions

« on: September 15, 2020, 05:13:19 PM »

Is there a transcript?

Yes, you can get one on YouTube by clicking "Open Transcript". Not always 100%, but it's a start.

BTW, the video and the supposed whistleblower were thoroughly debunked on YT years ago

Oh yeah by that house painter high on fumes. He's a genius alright. So much attack already, this is when you know you hit the nerve !!!

Don't confuse mocking and laughter as an attack.

60

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Please don't hit the dome. Astra

« on: September 15, 2020, 05:11:40 PM »

... and, for what it's worth, a climbing rocket, which is also moving away from the observer, whether viewed on a flat or globe earth, will ALWAYS look as though it is descending toward the ground at some point in its upward trajectory. Geometry called, and it said so.

In the case of launches Eastward from Cape Canaveral, where the rocket always moves out to sea, away from land-based observers, this is always the viewpoint.

It's unclear what the viewpoint on this Astra one was.

Tumeni give us hocus pocus speak. To get a permit for rockets you must not encroach on the dome, ie tilt it baby and go sideways. Here's a prime recent example of a Mars rocket. lmao @ 2:40 seconds into launch, it's trajectory is already only 42 miles high but get this 81 miles sideways or downrange from launch. At 3:00 minutes into launch, it's now only 63 miles high but a whooping 137 miles sideways. Think about the trajectory to achieve that ?  SIDEWAYS ... This is like shooting a bullet at a 45 degree angle for max distance. Now cut away to cartoon land on separation. I love NASA, so silly fooling the lemmings.  Kerplunk  in da ocean !!!

That's simply how orbital mechanics work.

Getting a rocket high enough is only half the equation, it has to be moving fast enough to get into a stable orbit. Most of the fuel is spent getting the rocket moving sideways fast enough for a stable rocket. If it simply went straight up, as soon as the engine shut off it would fall right back down.

Any rocket that wants to achieve orbit is going to be spending most of it's time going sideways from our perspective.

As for a bullet, shooting it at about 30 degrees is going to get you maximum distance, so you're not too far off.  It would be 45 if there was no air resistance.

You beat me to it.   

Rockets go near verticle long enough to get high enough to be in thin air for much less drag before they pitch over for horizontal speed. 

There is a great documentary on Netflix about the Saturn 5 (or is it Amazon?).    When Kennedy made his man on the moon speech NASA had no frickin idea how to make it happen, they literally had to invent every single process.   Buzz Aldrin did his doctorial work at MIT on orbital maneuvers.  No wonder he punches people.

It's sad that one of the greatest achievements of mankind is cast-off so easily by conspiracy fools.