Re: About the conspiracy
« Reply #60 on: April 01, 2021, 04:44:14 PM »
In all manner of mundane, run-of-the-mill, pedestrian ways, Govts tell the truth;

Environmental; reporting studies of bird and animal populations, analysis of flood plains, of coastal erosion, of landslip, of river flows, ship and boat registration, vehicle licencing, town planning and building, etc. etc.

Population; overall numbers, splits by county, city, town and village; splits by age, by sex, etc. etc.

Schooling; overall numbers, splits by private and state-owned, numbers of pupils, splits by sex, etc. etc.

In criminal law, the presumption is of innocence until proven guilty. Guilt by association with another (allegedly) guilty party does not make a valid case. Even if you prove Govt lies about something, somewhere (balance of payments, unemployment stats, number of COVID cases or vaccinations), that is not an automatic proof of lies with regard to space exploration, global mapping, or any of our hot topics here.

Mistakes and errors of incompetence do not equate to "lies". 

Do you presume the Govt innocent until proven guilty?

I largely subscribe to the economics school of Public Choice Theory which essentially says that public officials - politicians/bureaucrats - face the same constraints and influences on behaviors as those in the market, meaning they'll have incentives for (among other things), lying, misrepresentation, and other strongly self-interested behavior. A key example of this is the strong proclivity for bureaucratic entities to experience mission creep wherein each official seeks to gain more power over more things by subtly expanding their areas of jurisdiction.

Needless to say, I do not take a government's word for something as a rule, particularly if the topic is highly political in nature (e.g., remember way back when Fauci first claimed masks didn't protect folks, then admitted he only said that so that nurses could get the available masks first? - I think it's possible this event unintentionally influenced those who don't believe masks are needed, had Fauci never misled on this point, perhaps we'd all be better off, who knows).

All of that said, at least in the US and other democracies with stable political institutions and parties, there are checks on the complete abuse of the truth by the government - namely other political parties and oppositional government agencies. You can see this played out pretty directly all over politics in the US. Trump says a half-truth and his critics jump on it. Biden says a half-truth and now his critics jump on it. If either says a full lie, they jump on it even more. And multiple agencies (at least in the US) vie for influence over the same or similar domains of power, incentivizing them to push back if one makes a false step.

Are there areas where both (or multiple) political parties have incentives to collude in their misrepresentations of the truth to the public? Absolutely. But is that the case for the most part? No.






Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 667
    • View Profile
Re: About the conspiracy
« Reply #61 on: April 01, 2021, 05:13:37 PM »
"Plenty of Govts and their agents tell nothing but the truth on many topics, though."
The question stands

In all manner of mundane, run-of-the-mill, pedestrian ways, Govts tell the truth;

Environmental; reporting studies of bird and animal populations, analysis of flood plains, of coastal erosion, of landslip, of river flows, ship and boat registration, vehicle licencing, town planning and building, etc. etc.

Population; overall numbers, splits by county, city, town and village; splits by age, by sex, etc. etc.

Schooling; overall numbers, splits by private and state-owned, numbers of pupils, splits by sex, etc. etc.

In criminal law, the presumption is of innocence until proven guilty. Guilt by association with another (allegedly) guilty party does not make a valid case. Even if you prove Govt lies about something, somewhere (balance of payments, unemployment stats, number of COVID cases or vaccinations), that is not an automatic proof of lies with regard to space exploration, global mapping, or any of our hot topics here.

Mistakes and errors of incompetence do not equate to "lies". 

Do you presume the Govt innocent until proven guilty?
Why are you asking us if we presume the government innocent until proven guilty? A great many of your threads and posts you are well noted for making concern the most important arm of any government, that being law enforcement, for example.

In those posts your entire philosophical bent leans toward the idea that the government entity, law enforcement, is wrong, is lying, etc.

If I was you, I would just quit with the double speak. You are lost on this one. We are not talking about mistakes or errors.

The evidence (note I did not use the word proof) is firm in its entirety.

Governments lie and they will always lie, regardless of subject, because that is the nature of people.

Since insurance companies make their billions , acting on the principle, "The best evidence for future performance is past performance," I would state simply I will follow that principle instead of yours.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2021, 05:17:03 PM by Action80 »

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 667
    • View Profile
Re: About the conspiracy
« Reply #62 on: April 01, 2021, 05:15:51 PM »
In all manner of mundane, run-of-the-mill, pedestrian ways, Govts tell the truth;

Environmental; reporting studies of bird and animal populations, analysis of flood plains, of coastal erosion, of landslip, of river flows, ship and boat registration, vehicle licencing, town planning and building, etc. etc.

Population; overall numbers, splits by county, city, town and village; splits by age, by sex, etc. etc.

Schooling; overall numbers, splits by private and state-owned, numbers of pupils, splits by sex, etc. etc.

In criminal law, the presumption is of innocence until proven guilty. Guilt by association with another (allegedly) guilty party does not make a valid case. Even if you prove Govt lies about something, somewhere (balance of payments, unemployment stats, number of COVID cases or vaccinations), that is not an automatic proof of lies with regard to space exploration, global mapping, or any of our hot topics here.

Mistakes and errors of incompetence do not equate to "lies". 

Do you presume the Govt innocent until proven guilty?

I largely subscribe to the economics school of Public Choice Theory which essentially says that public officials - politicians/bureaucrats - face the same constraints and influences on behaviors as those in the market, meaning they'll have incentives for (among other things), lying, misrepresentation, and other strongly self-interested behavior. A key example of this is the strong proclivity for bureaucratic entities to experience mission creep wherein each official seeks to gain more power over more things by subtly expanding their areas of jurisdiction.

Needless to say, I do not take a government's word for something as a rule, particularly if the topic is highly political in nature (e.g., remember way back when Fauci first claimed masks didn't protect folks, then admitted he only said that so that nurses could get the available masks first? - I think it's possible this event unintentionally influenced those who don't believe masks are needed, had Fauci never misled on this point, perhaps we'd all be better off, who knows).

All of that said, at least in the US and other democracies with stable political institutions and parties, there are checks on the complete abuse of the truth by the government - namely other political parties and oppositional government agencies. You can see this played out pretty directly all over politics in the US. Trump says a half-truth and his critics jump on it. Biden says a half-truth and now his critics jump on it. If either says a full lie, they jump on it even more. And multiple agencies (at least in the US) vie for influence over the same or similar domains of power, incentivizing them to push back if one makes a false step.

Are there areas where both (or multiple) political parties have incentives to collude in their misrepresentations of the truth to the public? Absolutely. But is that the case for the most part? No.
This is not about Fauci and masks, but it does support the overall point. I do not even believe Fauci when he offered up what was supposed to be some kind legitimate reason, as it obviously wasn't.

*

Online Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13210
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: About the conspiracy
« Reply #63 on: April 01, 2021, 05:38:14 PM »
In all manner of mundane, run-of-the-mill, pedestrian ways, Govts tell the truth
Please can you provide some evidence or approach through which this claim can be verified for an unequivocally truthful government of your choice? That is what I asked for, after all.

Do you presume the Govt innocent until proven guilty?
I have not accused the government (or any government, to stay closer to my question) of having committed a crime. You are the one who made an affirmative statement here (the Government always tells the truth about everything some things). It is your burden to substantiate this claim.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2021, 05:40:37 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Re: About the conspiracy
« Reply #64 on: April 01, 2021, 05:47:14 PM »
At this point, they won't feel weightless any more - they weigh precisely the same as they do on the ground, or indeed sat on an airliner in level, unaccellerating flight.

This is also untrue.  Their mass will be the same but not their weight.  If a parachutist were to take a scale with them and put it under their feet while they are at terminal velocity the scale would not measure the same weight as it does on the ground.  It's no different than a scale in water.  Wind resistance acts the same way as water's buoyant force.


Sorry WTF, but Bob is spot on. 

Your analogy with floating in the water is different; you, and the water you displace, have identical mass so are accelerated by gravity at the same rate.  Neither can move vertically, of course, because the body of water is supported by the seabed, bottom of the pool, or whatever. 

When the parachutist leaves contact with the aircraft, he is instantaneously weightless, but immediately begins accelerating vertically.  As his vertical speed increases, he becomes subject to the upward force of aerodynamic drag, which is related to his size, his drag-coefficient (his shape), air density, and his velocity-squared.  He continues accelerating, and his weight continues increasing, until the aerodynamic drag equals the force of gravity; terminal velocity. 

Float in a pool and you perceive no force acting on you.  Compare this with sticking your arm out the window of a moving car.  Feel the difference?

Offline WTF_Seriously

  • *
  • Posts: 561
  • When I grow up I wanna be like Pete
    • View Profile
Re: About the conspiracy
« Reply #65 on: April 01, 2021, 06:12:58 PM »

Sorry WTF, but Bob is spot on. 

Your analogy with floating in the water is different; you, and the water you displace, have identical mass so are accelerated by gravity at the same rate.  Neither can move vertically, of course, because the body of water is supported by the seabed, bottom of the pool, or whatever. 

When the parachutist leaves contact with the aircraft, he is instantaneously weightless, but immediately begins accelerating vertically.  As his vertical speed increases, he becomes subject to the upward force of aerodynamic drag, which is related to his size, his drag-coefficient (his shape), air density, and his velocity-squared.  He continues accelerating, and his weight continues increasing, until the aerodynamic drag equals the force of gravity; terminal velocity. 

Float in a pool and you perceive no force acting on you.  Compare this with sticking your arm out the window of a moving car.  Feel the difference?

Didn't realize this was such a difficult concept.  Here:

https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2018/free-falling-the-science-of-weightlessness/#:~:text=Astronauts%20feel%20weightless%20when%20there%20is%20nothing%20opposing%20the%20force%20of%20gravity.&text=(B)%20An%20astronaut%20orbiting%20the,Thus%2C%20the%20astronaut%20is%20falling.

The feeling of weightlessness has nothing to do with acceleration.  Weightlessness is the lack of feeling a normal force against your body.  You actually stated the concept while refuting the concept.  Well done.

If you could eliminate the tactile sensations of water, you would feel no difference in weightlessness floating perfectly still in water, with zero acceleration, as you do in space.  Motion in water ruins the effect because water has density unlike space.
Distance from Sydney to Perth - We don't know.
There's a mirror floating in the sky - Yup.

Re: About the conspiracy
« Reply #66 on: April 01, 2021, 06:15:50 PM »

Do you presume the Govt innocent until proven guilty?
I have not accused the government (or any government, to stay closer to my question) of having committed a crime. You are the one who made an affirmative statement here (the Government always tells the truth about everything some things). It is your burden to substantiate this claim.

Clarifying question about this -

Is a government agency "telling the truth" if it believes it is doing so, even if what is says is later discovered to be mistaken or incorrect? 

Or is it only "telling the truth" if what it says is 100% accurate and correct with no mistakes?

The distinction seems small, but it's not. "Telling the truth" can be defined as an absence of deception, or as an absence of error (or both).

I would think it's possible to provide examples wherein the govt. always tells the truth because it isn't employing deception, but could involve errors (e.g., the population numbers of Rockwall county, TX, as provided by official county statistics - no one's ever claimed those statistics were deceptively provided to the public).

But it's likely virtually impossible to find examples in which the govt. always tells the truth about something because it is never incorrect about it. The government is full of fallible humans, so it's bound to be incorrect about everything at one time or another.

If we define telling the truth is merely an absence of deception, I'd say Tumeni already provided sufficient examples, and I offered a narrower one from his own list - the specific population of Rockwall county, TX.

*

Online Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13210
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: About the conspiracy
« Reply #67 on: April 01, 2021, 06:54:26 PM »
Clarifying question about this -

Is a government agency "telling the truth" if it believes it is doing so, even if what is says is later discovered to be mistaken or incorrect?
For the sake of the discussion, let's go for the "if it believes it's telling the truth, it's telling the truth - even if it later turns out they were mistaken" approach.

If we define telling the truth is merely an absence of deception, I'd say Tumeni already provided sufficient examples, and I offered a narrower one from his own list - the specific population of Rockwall county, TX.
You both provided examples to the effect of a government being capable of telling the truth on specific matters - not that it always does so as an unbreakable rule. The distinction is crucial and inescapable, since Tumeni is attempting a proof by induction.

Of course, the eagle-eyed among beings who cannot to cease to be will have already noticed that his proof is impossible - but I am still curious to see him either reach that conclusion himself or deny it.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2021, 06:57:47 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 417
    • View Profile
Re: About the conspiracy
« Reply #68 on: April 01, 2021, 07:03:40 PM »
At this point, they won't feel weightless any more - they weigh precisely the same as they do on the ground, or indeed sat on an airliner in level, unaccellerating flight.

This is also untrue.  Their mass will be the same but not their weight.  If a parachutist were to take a scale with them and put it under their feet while they are at terminal velocity the scale would not measure the same weight as it does on the ground.  It's no different than a scale in water.  Wind resistance acts the same way as water's buoyant force.

Again, I think we’re actually not far off being in violent agreement here. Apologies if I’m not making myself clear - I’ll try again.

I’m not saying you need to be accelerating to feel weightless - if you were floating around in deep space, far from any planet’s gravitational field, you would field weightless too.

Part of the issue here is the term itself - feeling ‘weightless’ doesn’t mean you don’t weigh anything. You’re weight is, as you rightly say, the force acting on your mass due to gravity. You feel your weight when there is a reaction force acting on some part of your body - your feet when you are standing up, for example. Your entire body perceives the weight because all of your connecting tissues have to transmit the reaction force in order for every part of your body to have a net zero vertical force.

A parachutist in freefall, before they get fast enough for drag to become significant, feels weightless because there is no reaction force. But when they are at terminal velocity, weight equals drag and the feeling, aside from the obvious blast of the wind, is similar to that of lying down. Of course, scales on their feet would read zero - that’s why in aviation we are always careful to indicate which axis of acceleration we are talking about - but if they were lying on a giant set of scales which provided all of the drag force, they would indicate the same as they do when stationary on the ground.

People get slightly confused by orbit. The reason for feeling weightless has nothing to do with space per se, but rather everything to do with speed. If you could fly a hypersonic aircraft at orbital speed in the atmosphere, you would find you needed to perpetually ‘bunt’ at 0g simply to maintain constant altitude above the earths surface - a kind of eternal vomet comet run. Of course we can’t do this, as we don’t have the tech to go that fast. At the speeds most aircraft fly the effect is barely measurable - even supersonic aircraft don’t fly fast enough for the reduction from 1g at ‘level’ flight to be noticeable.

All of which is why I’m asking the (as yet unanswered) question of Pete and Action80 - why would astronauts aboard the ISS feel weightless if the earth was flat? If they are flying around in some kind of gentle circle over a flat earth, how would that differ in terms of forces to those experienced by passengers on an airliner?

Offline WTF_Seriously

  • *
  • Posts: 561
  • When I grow up I wanna be like Pete
    • View Profile
Re: About the conspiracy
« Reply #69 on: April 01, 2021, 07:22:51 PM »
If you'd said this:

I’m not saying you need to be accelerating to feel weightless

rather than this:

you are constantly accelerating, which is why you feel weightless.

We likely could have avoided, as delightful as it was, this whole discussion.


But then you had to throw this in...
The reason for feeling weightless has nothing to do with space per se, but rather everything to do with speed.

The FEELING of weightlessness has nothing to do with either acceleration or velocity.  The feeling exists because the normal force against your body doesn't.  It's that simple no matter your velocity or acceleration.
Distance from Sydney to Perth - We don't know.
There's a mirror floating in the sky - Yup.

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 417
    • View Profile
Re: About the conspiracy
« Reply #70 on: April 01, 2021, 07:51:26 PM »
If you'd said this:

I’m not saying you need to be accelerating to feel weightless

rather than this:

you are constantly accelerating, which is why you feel weightless.

We likely could have avoided, as delightful as it was, this whole discussion.


Those two sentences aren’t actually mutually exclusive, if you think about it.


But then you had to throw this in...
The reason for feeling weightless has nothing to do with space per se, but rather everything to do with speed.

The FEELING of weightlessness has nothing to do with either acceleration or velocity.  The feeling exists because the normal force against your body doesn't.  It's that simple no matter your velocity or acceleration.

It has everything to do with speed (or rather velocity, to be pedantic) because at orbital velocity you can be at 0g forever. Faster than this, and 0g will take you away from the planet. Slower and, like the vomit comet, your flight path will very quickly see you meeting the surface of the planet. You can experience 0g in an aircraft/spacecraft flying at any speed, but the faster you are travelling, the longer you can do it for.

Again, I think we’re pretty much in agreement here. I was just trying to clarify orbital mechanics a bit - an orbit at constant speed is, confusingly, accelerated motion. Velocity changes, speed doesn’t.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2695
    • View Profile
Re: About the conspiracy
« Reply #71 on: April 01, 2021, 08:51:26 PM »
The distinction is crucial and inescapable, since Tumeni is attempting a proof by induction. Of course, the eagle-eyed among beings who cannot to cease to be will have already noticed that his proof is impossible - but I am still curious to see him either reach that conclusion himself or deny it.

The what ... ?

Here's the North East Coast Observatory report on coastal erosion between the Scottish Border and the Tyne River at Newcastle. I'm confident that this report is truthful in all matters, excluding error and omission.

http://www.northeastcoastalobservatory.org.uk/data/reports/

The type of day-to-day stuff that Govts do, without lying about it. Knock yourself out.
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Offline WTF_Seriously

  • *
  • Posts: 561
  • When I grow up I wanna be like Pete
    • View Profile
Re: About the conspiracy
« Reply #72 on: April 01, 2021, 09:19:33 PM »
And I thought we almost had it.

If you'd said this:

I’m not saying you need to be accelerating to feel weightless

rather than this:

you are constantly accelerating, which is why you feel weightless.

We likely could have avoided, as delightful as it was, this whole discussion.


Those two sentences aren’t actually mutually exclusive, if you think about it.

Wow.  Right back where we started.  Mutually exclusive, no.  Your second statement is abjectly false.  Acceleration has nothing to do with whether one feels weightlessness or not.  It's all right there in the vomit comet.  You have weightlessness during deceleration, 0 acceleration, and acceleration all in the same pass.

It has everything to do with speed (or rather velocity, to be pedantic) because at orbital velocity you can be at 0g forever. Faster than this, and 0g will take you away from the planet. Slower and, like the vomit comet, your flight path will very quickly see you meeting the surface of the planet. You can experience 0g in an aircraft/spacecraft flying at any speed, but the faster you are travelling, the longer you can do it for.
This is a beauty.  In the same paragraph you say it has everything to do with speed then give two different speeds in space as well as saying any speed in an aircraft.  What's the common denominator?  Zero normal force on the body during all three instances of differing speeds, accelerations, and directional vectors.  How long one can maintain weightlessness is an entirely separate subject.

I'm going to leave this now unless Pete wants to throw it all in CN then we can continue.  No need to clog the upper with more of this.

« Last Edit: April 01, 2021, 09:42:00 PM by WTF_Seriously »
Distance from Sydney to Perth - We don't know.
There's a mirror floating in the sky - Yup.

Offline fisherman

  • *
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: About the conspiracy
« Reply #73 on: April 02, 2021, 01:24:53 AM »
Quote
Wow.  Right back where we started.  Mutually exclusive, no.  Your second statement is abjectly false.  Acceleration has nothing to do with whether one feels weightlessness or not.  It's all right there in the vomit comet.  You have weightlessness during deceleration, 0 acceleration, and acceleration all in the same pass

I've lost track of who is arguing what, but I don't think you guys really disagree. You're both just being a bit sloppy with your terms, especially "acceleration" and "free fall"

Acceleration is a change in an objects speed and/or direction.  Weightlessness is the result of free fall.  An object is in free fall when the only force acting on it is gravity. (or no force at all in relativity, since gravity is not considered a force).  Although an object in orbit changes direction and technically could be considered "accelerating", that "acceleration" is due only to the force of gravity, therefore it is considered in free fall.

An object that is truly accelerating cannot be weightless because changes in direction and/or speed require  a force other than gravity be applied because Newton's First Law. An object subject only to gravity will move at a constant speed and in a straight line unless acted upon by another  force.

Anyway, back to the question that started the whole discussion.  A person in a spacecraft will not feel weightless unless the space craft is in freefall.  If the flat earth is accelerating at 9.81m/s, the space craft must somehow be  accelerating along with it in order to "keep up" and maintain visual contact with the earth.  Any person in the spacecraft would have to accelerating along with the spacecraft, will not be in free fall and therefore cannot experience weightlessness.

Really, that's just another way of explaining the equivalence principle...acceleration and gravity produce identical effects.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2021, 01:35:59 AM by fisherman »
There are two kinds of people in the world.  Those that can infer logical conclusions from given information

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 417
    • View Profile
Re: About the conspiracy
« Reply #74 on: April 02, 2021, 07:32:51 AM »
It's all right there in the vomit comet.  You have weightlessness during deceleration, 0 acceleration, and acceleration all in the same pass.

Bingo. There it is - I knew there was some issue with your understanding of this but it took a while to figure it out. That statement is fundamentally wrong. The vomit comet never changes its acceleration throughout the weightless phase - it is constant throughout.

Acceleration, in physics / maths, is the rate of change of a component of velocity, in this case the vertical velocity of the aircraft. So from the moment the pilot pushes forward on the controls to achieve 0g on the g-meter, the aircraft is accelerating at 9.81ms2 vertically down. It is ballistic, just like a ball thrown at 45 degrees up into the air. Yes, in the first half of the parabola you might call this deceleration if you want, as it slows the aircraft down, but mathematically it’s just one acceleration throughout. Importantly, at the top of the curve, the aircraft will have zero vertical velocity but will still be accelerating - it’s rate of change of velocity hasn’t changed sign or magnitude.

Quite happy if Pete wants to break this out into another thread, although I’m still waiting for an answer from him or Action80 on how our mistaken astronauts might feel weightless for several months aloft above a flat earth, if there’s no curvature to keep them in perpetual freefall.

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 417
    • View Profile
Re: About the conspiracy
« Reply #75 on: April 02, 2021, 03:08:22 PM »
I've lost track of who is arguing what, but I don't think you guys really disagree.
Agreed!

you're both just being a bit sloppy with your terms, especially "acceleration" and "free fall"

Acceleration is a change in an objects speed and/or direction.

That, I'm afraid, is sloppy. Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity with respect to time. dv/dt, in calculus terms. Speed is not the same as velocity. Speed is not a vector term - it has magnitude, but no direction. If you drive a car in a circle, your speed can stay constant, but you are still accelerating - in this case, towards the centre of the circle - as your velocity components are continuously changing. 

Weightlessness is the result of free fall.  An object is in free fall when the only force acting on it is gravity. (or no force at all in relativity, since gravity is not considered a force).  Although an object in orbit changes direction and technically could be considered "accelerating", that "acceleration" is due only to the force of gravity, therefore it is considered in free fall.

An object in orbit is absolutely accelerating - at 9.81 metres per second, per second, towards the centre of the earth. Its speed remains content, but its velocity components are changing, hence the constant change in direction.

An object that is truly accelerating cannot be weightless because changes in direction and/or speed require  a force other than gravity be applied because Newton's First Law. An object subject only to gravity will move at a constant speed and in a straight line unless acted upon by another  force.

No. The text in bold is fundamentally wrong. An object subject only to gravity will accelerate at a constant rate. On or near our planet, any object will experience a force on it equal to its mass multiplied by the acceleration due to gravity, g. And because F=ma, if the only force on it is 'mg', then mg=ma, so a=g, meaning our object will accelerate at g, or 9.81ms-2. If it wasn't for air resistance, objects dropped from height would keep getting faster and faster. 

Anyway, back to the question that started the whole discussion.  A person in a spacecraft will not feel weightless unless the space craft is in freefall.  If the flat earth is accelerating at 9.81m/s, the space craft must somehow be  accelerating along with it in order to "keep up" and maintain visual contact with the earth.  Any person in the spacecraft would have to accelerating along with the spacecraft, will not be in free fall and therefore cannot experience weightlessness.

Agreed - hence my question to Pete and Action80. How could an astronaut feel weightless for months on end if they are constantly at the same altitude above the flat earth? Regardless of FE views on gravity, an object that maintains altitude above the flat earth would have to have some force keeping it there, just like lift in an aircraft, which means the astronauts wouldn't feel weightless.

Offline WTF_Seriously

  • *
  • Posts: 561
  • When I grow up I wanna be like Pete
    • View Profile
Re: About the conspiracy
« Reply #76 on: April 02, 2021, 03:25:10 PM »
Bingo. There it is - I knew there was some issue with your understanding of this but it took a while to figure it out. That statement is fundamentally wrong. The vomit comet never changes its acceleration throughout the weightless phase - it is constant throughout.

Acceleration, in physics / maths, is the rate of change of a component of velocity, in this case the vertical velocity of the aircraft. So from the moment the pilot pushes forward on the controls to achieve 0g on the g-meter, the aircraft is accelerating at 9.81ms2 vertically down. It is ballistic, just like a ball thrown at 45 degrees up into the air. Yes, in the first half of the parabola you might call this deceleration if you want, as it slows the aircraft down, but mathematically it’s just one acceleration throughout. Importantly, at the top of the curve, the aircraft will have zero vertical velocity but will still be accelerating - it’s rate of change of velocity hasn’t changed sign or magnitude.


Thank you for that. I get what you're saying. It's still irrelevant.

The sensation of weightlessness is nothing more than the removal of the forces against the body which cause you to detect weight.  It's as simple as that.  If the conditions can be created, weightlessness can be felt at any acceleration, at zero acceleration under motion, or at zero motion entirely.  Hence, orbiting astronauts under acceleration, astronauts to the moon at zero acceleration immense speed and me floating in my sensory deprivation chamber (though admittedly not perfect) all sense weightlessness. A body's motion has absolutely nothing to do with the ability to feel weightless.  A parachutists feels weight.  An astronaut does not.  It's has zero to do with their motion. It's because one is travelling in air molecules. The other is not.  THAT is what causes the sensation of weightlessness.

Let's take one last look at the vomit comet.  The plane, just like the parachutist, feels weight. It takes addtional force to keep it falling faster than terminal velocity. The passenger does not.  Both under the exact same motion. 

Honestly, this is my last.  I really can't beat this dead horse any longer.
Distance from Sydney to Perth - We don't know.
There's a mirror floating in the sky - Yup.

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 417
    • View Profile
Re: About the conspiracy
« Reply #77 on: April 02, 2021, 03:59:09 PM »
The sensation of weightlessness is nothing more than the removal of the forces against the body which cause you to detect weight.  It's as simple as that. 

I can go with this! No worries.

So...back to Pete and Action80. Any response folks?

*

Online Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13210
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: About the conspiracy
« Reply #78 on: April 02, 2021, 04:22:51 PM »
The what ... ?
One day, you will learn to pay attention. Until then, you'll just have to glance past comments that weren't targeted at you.

The type of day-to-day stuff that Govts do, without lying about it. Knock yourself out.
You continue to miss the point - perhaps deliberately. I do not contest the notion that a government is capable of telling the truth. I contest the notion that a government will always tell the truth. That is the cornerstone of your argument, and your argument collapses without it. Note that what you are "confident" in is entirely irrelevant here.

Yes, this means your argument is indefensible; but perhaps you'd like to try again?

So...back to Pete and Action80. Any response folks?
Sorry, which part of you two disagreeing on what weightlessness is (lol) are you looking for a response to? I guess I can go on a rant about the shameful state of Western education, if you'd really like me to, but this is not the place for it.

Otherwise, the subject has been done to death, and doesn't have much to do with this thread at all.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2021, 04:55:50 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 417
    • View Profile
Re: About the conspiracy
« Reply #79 on: April 02, 2021, 05:55:07 PM »
Sorry, which part of you two disagreeing on what weightlessness is (lol) are you looking for a response to? I guess I can go on a rant about the shameful state of Western education, if you'd really like me to, but this is not the place for it.

It was my earlier question to you Pete. You said you found the possibility of astronauts simply being mistaken to be plausible. My question was how they could feel weightless for prolonged periods of time without being in orbit around a round earth. If the earth is flat, and they’re moving around above it at a fixed altitude, then how are they feeling weightless?