Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - fisherman

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 8  Next >
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 03, 2021, 04:39:14 PM »
Newton stated any half wit would reject the concept that such a thing as gravity exists.Newton stated any half wit would reject the concept that such a thing as gravity exists

Newton wasn't a half-wit, that's why he didn't reject it.  Instead he spent his life describing and studying it.  Perhaps you've heard of Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation?  It states that  every particle attracts every other particle in the universe with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers.

He was so convinced it existed, he formulated a law to describe its action.


Thanks for the laugh!

I'm often funny without realizing it.  What exactly is funny about what I said?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: UA and the atmosplane
« on: May 03, 2021, 01:40:41 PM »
There has to be some force working on the atmosphere, otherwise atmospheric pressure wouldn't be possible.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 03, 2021, 01:38:43 PM »
Yeah, and now we have it.

Newton did not say what Newton did say.

Well, I am no longer going to entertain your total BS show.

Water rolls off any ball. Period.

We understand the mechanisms of magnetism.

Another BS piece of garbage uttered by you.

Along with the rest of the BS mechanisms, like space time warping causing water to stick to a ball.

One big freaking joke

The part of the quote you leave out is that Newton left the mechanism of gravity “to the consideration of the reader”.  Einstein took him up on it.

The mechanism of gravity is understood. The motion of all bodies is determined by the inertio-gravitational field. Einstein’s field equations inform us how the field interacts with matter and influences its motion. Just because you reject that explanation, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.

No mechanism? Then no force can be claimed

Neither do we have an explanation as to why why particles emit magnetic fields, but that lack of explanation doesn’t seem to keep you from accepting that magnetic fields exist. No explanation as to how the UA force works either, but that doesn't keep many people from accepting it.

Gravity isn't a why are you demanding that an explanation of the mechanism is necessary?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about the Vomit Comet
« on: May 02, 2021, 04:35:42 PM »
I was thinking about the issue of whether or not UA force effects objects on the surface and the penny dropped.  (or maybe be the earth rose up to meet it). The whole question about how the Vomit Comet would work on UA is answered by how the weight force works.

Unless UA does effect objects on the surface, there would be no way to perceive weight.  When we step on the bathroom scale, it isn’t measuring the gravitational force.  It is measuring the reaction force, the normal force. Gravity causes us to produce a downward pull on the surface of the scale, and the surface of the scale pushes back up.  That “push up” reaction is what the scale measures.  UA would have to work the same, except in reverse.  The scale would be measuring the reaction force of your feet pushing down on the scale, as UA pushes the scale up.  Without contact with a solid surface, we can’t perceive or measure weight.

But here is the whole key...weight is a force with both magnitude and direction.  On a RE, a 200 lb. Person would generate 1962N of weight force.  On an FE, that same person would generate -1962N of weight force.

The article I linked shows the formula for the amount of acceleration necessary to generate 0g is,aircraft%20vertical%20(z)%20axis.

You don't have to look at that formula very long to realize that if you reverse the direction of the weight force, you are going to get a very different result.  The vertical acceleration would have to be in the opposite direction on FE with UA, than what it is on RE with gravity.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about the Vomit Comet
« on: May 02, 2021, 03:38:09 AM »
Not sure why you would think that UA would augment thrust.

LOL, I just realized the mental image I have been carrying in my head is a rocket, going straight up...not a plane.

So I guess what I meant was “lift” not “thrust”.  The accelerating atmosphere creates “lift” in that it accelerates the plane vertically, independent of any lift created by how the pilot manipulates the controls.

I found a good article linked below. One of the points that stood out to me was this.

Contrary to popular misconception, the 0 g freefall phase of flight begins as the aircraft climbs, and does not occur solely as the aircraft descends. Although the aircraft has upward velocity during the initial 0 g phase, its acceleration is downward: the upward velocity is decreasing.

Seems to me that at that point, the upward velocity would be decreasing at a different rate in UA than with gravity alone.

This is important; the plane is not in free-fall, although its occupants are.  The plane is in aerodynamic flight. 

The article I linked above seems to contradict that.

Essentially, if the aircraft and its occupants "fall" together at 9.81 m/s2, "0 g" is achieved, where there is no reaction force on the occupants by the aircraft.

Also here...

At this point, the only unbalanced force acting on the plane is weight, so the plane and its passengers are in free fall. This is what creates the zero-g experience.


On top of that, and I'm 100% not an advocate for FE here (perhaps someone from that camp could chime in), I don't think UA directly acts on any worldly matter apart from the planet (disc?) itself.

That really seems to be the heart of the matter.  To me, the way TV is explained, UA does effect a "falling object".  Perhaps not directly, but in some what that it causes a falling object to accelerate.  And one must assume that is accelerate up and not down.

But you're right, it would be nice for an FE advocate to chime in.  Seems like it would be an easy enough clarification to make.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about the Vomit Comet
« on: May 01, 2021, 02:53:08 PM »

Of the 4 forces, gravity is trying to pull the aircraft in free-fall, but it still has drag, so the pilot has to balance controls (ie lift), thrust and starting trajectory such that drag can be compensated for as if the aircraft was in free fall.  As I see it, the same would occur if the aircraft was in a rising mass of air in FE; the Earth/atmosphere's 1g acceleration would appear identical to RE gravity

Would those adjustments be the same in UA? Again, intuitively...thrust on RE would only be whatever the engine provides, but on FE, thrust would be whatever the engine provides plus the "thrust" that UA provides.  So it seems like adjustments to make thrust=drag would be different for FE and RE.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about the Vomit Comet
« on: May 01, 2021, 12:11:14 AM »
A couple of posts ago I thought we were getting somewhere, but now I'm not so sure.  Part of the problem here, and I say this with the greatest respect, is that the whole FE/RE thing deals with many concepts which, in isolation, can take a career to get your head around, and you can't expect to get the same level of understanding from a few hours or days on the interweb.  I'm happy to concede that Einstein, relativity and bendy space are completely outside my comfort zone, so I don't even go there.  I do, however, have a background in aviation. 

First of all, what's the obsession with Terminal Velocity?  Its just a speed (downwards or upwards, depending on your take) at which the force of aerodynamic drag equals the accelerating force of gravity or UA.  (And please stop referring to gravity and suchlike as "drag"; drag is a specific force only caused by aerodynamics).  There is no single "Terminal Velocity", it is dependent on the mass, size, shape and orientation of the object, and upon air density.  So, for instance, in air;

  TV of a one Metre sphere of styrofoam is less than a one metre sphere of iron (mass)
  TV of a one kilogram sphere of styrofoam is less than a one kilogram sphere of iron (size)
  TV of a one kilogram cube of iron is less than a one kilogram sphere of iron (shape)
  TV of a 500lb Mk 82 bomb minus its fins, is less than that of one fitted with fins (orientation)
  TV of anything dropped from 1000 metres above the sea is less than the same object dropped from 1000 metres above Mount Everest (air density). 

So our typical human has a TV of around 300 kmph at typical skydiving heights, due to sea-level air density.  Felix Baumgartner on the other hand achieved over 1300 kmph on his dive from 39 km, due to the reduced air density at altitude.  The WW2 Tallboy bomb achieved a TV of around 1200 kmph, due to its shape and orientation.  So; TV is just a number. 

Lets look at the Wiki on TV;

"In the Round Earth model, terminal velocity happens when the acceleration due to gravity is equal to the acceleration due to drag. In the Flat Earth model, however, there are no balanced forces: terminal velocity happens when the upward acceleration of the falling object is equal to the upward acceleration of the Earth".

OK, happy with the RE bit.  FE part; why are the forces not balanced?  What is causing the "upward acceleration of the falling object"?   Wouldn't it make more sense to say that aerodynamic drag of the rising atmosphere is accelerating the falling object?  Therefore the forces are balanced. 

Everyone happy with the concept of a windtunnel?  You stick aerodynamic models in it and switch it on, and you can see how they will react in flight.  In other words, static-object, moving-air, gives identical results to moving-object, static-air.  Surely this is analogous to falling object-static air, and static-object, rising-air. 

Finally, lift, drag, thrust and weight.  Don't run away with the idea that all these forces are working at 90 degrees to each other; they aren't. 

Thrust is always aligned along the axis of the engine so, in conventional aeroplanes, can be considered (more or less) to be along the longitudinal axis of the aircraft, regardless of its orientation. 
Weight is always vertically down, regardless of orientation of the aircraft. 
Drag is always in line with the relative airflow on the wings.  If the aircraft has an angle of, say, 15 degrees nose-up to the relative airflow, drag will not be aligned with thrust. 
Lift is always at 90 degrees to the relative airflow, so is only ever directly opposing weight if the aircraft is in straight and level flight, and almost never when flying a parabolic zero-g flight. 

The flight of a Vomit-Comet (and there are several), requires a complex balance of entry speed and orientation (typically at 45 degrees nose-up), thrust and lift-management by the use of flying controls to ensure that the aircraft follows the exact free-fall trajectory of its occupants. 

Terminal Velocity has nothing to do with it. 

(Oh yes, and acceleration does not cause drag.  Velocity causes drag).

Thank you for this...its the kind of input I was looking for.  The only reason I brought up the concept of TV is to demonstrate that UA does in fact effect a "falling object" in FE.  Having to detour around that issue took us down a rabbit hole.

I'm not aeronautical engineer, obviously ::) but intuitively, it seems to me if during the free fall stage only gravity is effecting the plane, then with UA, only UA would be effecting the plane.  And if UA is effecting the plane during "freefall", then the occupants would be pinned to the floor.

Could the vomit comet work with UA?  Maybe, maybe not, but as I tried to clarify the question really isn't whether or not it could work, but could it work the same way.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about the Vomit Comet
« on: April 30, 2021, 05:30:50 PM »
I just told you.  Objects are accelerated upward by aerodynamic pull.  In the case of the plane, it not only maintains equal upward acceleration due to aerodynamic pull, but lift allows it to also maintain equal velocity with the earth.

There is no lift in parabolic flight.  It disappears because of the angle. 

If the plane was being accelerated by UA there would be no drag.

Unless it's in a vacuum, acceleration always causes drag.

It just dawned on me what point I am failing to make clear and why we are talking past each other.  The question isn't whether or not it would be possible for the Vomit Comet to be a thing in a UA environment.  The question is "would it be possible according to how the Vomit Comet actually operates?"

The way I understand, the vomit comet could work with UA if the pilot allowed for more drag than thrust and thereby "cancel" the UA effect.

I don't know this for 100% certainty, which is why I asked, but my sense is that if you asked a pilot of the Vomit Comet whether or not they allow for more drag than thrust in parabolic flight, the answer would be no.  They would tell you that drag and thrust are equal.

Flat Earth Community / Re: i dont understand someone help please
« on: April 30, 2021, 04:35:44 PM »
The only difference between "knowing" something and "believing" something is your own perceived degree of certainty.
I have certainly claimed to "know" things in the past which I have subsequently found out were incorrect.

Yes, that's kind of my point.  Knowing and believing are just degrees of certainty.  Not two different things.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about the Vomit Comet
« on: April 30, 2021, 04:19:07 PM »
There is no force on the plane due to UA.

Then why does the plane need to overcome "terminal acceleration"?  If it isn't being accelerated, there is nothing to overcome.

Again, I point you back to the wiki definition of TV.  It PLAINLY says that the falling object is accelerated.  Gravity isn't accelerating it so what is?

IF the plane was being accelerated by UA you could turn off the engines and it would maintain altitude.

It would continue to accelerate, but at a slower rate than the earth because of drag.  Eventually, the earth closes the gap. 

EDIT:  Curious as to your resistance to the idea that UA would effect an object that is not on the surface of the earth.  Gravity effects things that aren't on the surface, and if gravity=UA, why wouldn't UA effect things not on the surface?

Flat Earth Community / Re: i dont understand someone help please
« on: April 30, 2021, 04:10:38 PM »
That's good! Avoid becoming one! Belief is what got us into this mess in the first place. Belief has no place in knowledge/fact, least of all scientific, and is directly across purposes to objective study of any kind. Seek to KNOW instead!

That comes close to the dumbest thing I have ever heard anybody say.  You can only know something if you have (and understand) all the facts, but you can never know if you have all the facts or that you understand them correctly. You can only believe that you do. 

You can’t know what you don’t know, so by your logic you can’t really know anything.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: April 30, 2021, 03:26:40 PM »
No, you didn't explain a mechanism.

You stated a postulate.

Stated postulate =/= explained mechanism.

Good day to you.

Einstein's field equations explain the mechanism.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about the Vomit Comet
« on: April 30, 2021, 03:24:51 PM »
Everything on Earth is ultimately made from Earth.  You, me, the chair (wood is a biological product of Earth-bound elements, carbon, nitrogen and so on), the house the chair is in (sand, rock), the plane is made of aluminium (smelted from bauxite, mined from the Earth).  Why does all this crap stop feeling the direct effect of UA once we give it a name?

It doesn't stop feeling the direct effect of UA. They use what amounts to a “reverse normal force” to explain that.  With gravity, we are always being pulled down.  If the surface of the earth wasn’t in the way, it pull us down to the center of the earth.  In response to force of gravity pulling us down to the surface, the surface pushes back up on us and equalizes the force and keeps us from being pulled down.  That’s the normal force.  FE claims it works in reverse with UA. The surface of the earth pushes objects up, and in response the object pushes down.  Equal force means we don’t fly off.

Seems like there is a flaw in that somewhere, but can’t quite put my finger on it.  With gravity, a surface can only respond with so much normal force before it breaks. With the differences in mass between the earth and individual objects on the earth, it seems like at some point an object wouldn’t physically be able to push back. Haven’t really thought it through, though.

For the vomit comet to work it must place itself and the passenger in a state of zero acceleration.  To do this, it simply has to be able to overcome aerodynamic pull in order to overcome terminal acceleration.  Voila, the FE vomit comet.  Simple as that.

There’s no forces on the plane that would account for overcoming the acceleration. That was the whole point of my question.  Thrust and drag cancel each other out and lift is eliminated by the angle.  The only force on the plane is the acceleration caused by UA.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about the Vomit Comet
« on: April 30, 2021, 03:05:59 AM »
If UA acted on the passenger, when a parachutist steps out of a plane they would float under UA.  Even FEers know a parachutist 'falls'.  The only way this happens is if the parachutist isn't acted upon by UA.  It's really not that difficult a concept.

Then maybe DuncanDoenitz can clear it up for us.

Aerodynamic lift is maintaining the aircraft at a constant altitude, so it (and its occupants) are supported by the atmosphere (atmosplane - yuk!), which is supported by the Earth.  Thus, the aircraft and its occupants, by implication, have identical acceleration and instantaneous velocity as the Earth, so are accelerating upward at 9.81 m/s/s due to UA (also yuk!).

When you leave the aircraft you have the same instantaneous velocity as Earth and atmosphere, hence feel no windrush.  However, as you are now not being accelerated, the earth continues to accelerate towards you at 9.81m/s/s.  In a vacuum, you would remain at constant velocity until the Earth (because it is still accelerating) hits you.

In practice because you are in the, still accelerating, atmosphere you start to accelerate upwards again and begin to feel windrush as aerodynamic drag takes effect, until you reach terminal velocity. (And that's terminal velocity downwards in RE, but terminal velocity upwards in FE!).   

At this point your body's acceleration is identical to Earth's but, because of the period when you had reduced acceleration, your velocity is less than Earth's so it still hits you.

He seems to be interpreting the what the wiki says the same as I am.  The falling object is accelerated up by the atmosphere.  If that causes a contradiction with anything else that FE proposes, is that really a surprise?  The whole theory is full of contradictions.

But actually, it doesn't contradict it. The parachutist does "float", for awhile anyway. He accelerates up at a slower rate than the earth because of drag.  Since the parachutist is accelerating up at a slower rate than the earth is accelerating up, the earth eventually closes the gap. 

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about the Vomit Comet
« on: April 29, 2021, 10:22:06 PM »
In UA/FE theory, UA doesn't act upon the plane and passenger. 

Yes it does.

When the acceleration of the falling object is equal to the acceleration of the Earth, the object has reached terminal velocity relative to the Earth.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about the Vomit Comet
« on: April 29, 2021, 08:13:26 PM »
During FE weightlessness, the thrust of the plane is such that it is forcing itself through the accelerating atmosphere in order to remain motionless just like the passengers.

There is no thrust in parabolic flight.  Thrust and drag cancel each other out.
This occurs because only the earth is affected by UA, not the plane and passengers.

I already showed how that is not the case according to RE theory.  A falling object accelerates.  It says that plainly on the wiki.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about the Vomit Comet
« on: April 29, 2021, 07:16:21 PM »
Make sense?

No.  Because of the point I keep making and you keep ignoring is that frame of reference is irrelevant

From a fixed point on the earth the plane would not appear to be stationary or at a constant velocity because acceleration is not relative .  From a fixed point on the earth, the plane would appear to be accelerating at 1g because acceleration is not relative.  I can’t make it any clearer than that.  For your explanation to make sense, then acceleration must be relative, and its not.

Even, if it was.  That wouldn’t change what the plane and its occupants are experiencing.  So what if someone else on the surface doesn’t perceive that the plane is accelerating? What matters is whether or not the occupants experience acceleration.  Someone else’s perception of what they experience doesn’t change what they experience.

If someone in another frame of reference can’t perceive the plane’s acceleration, then according to you the acceleration doesn’t exist. By that logic, if the observer closes his eyes and can no longer observe the plane, the plane doesn’t exist. Not to get all philosophical, but it is fascinating to me the way people, FE and RE alike seem to think that someone's perception of your reality, changes your reality.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make an FE map with accurate distances
« on: April 29, 2021, 05:40:31 PM »

This is essentially what Flat Earthers experience every day. Our society most definitely places great pressure on Flat Earthers to change their views. Where 'Round Earth' normies think they are doing FErs a favour by rescuing them from a deep pit of ignorance, many will instead interpret this as suppression of their right to believe in something, and therefore a threat to their perceived freedom, creating a backfire effect that strengthens their views and makes it impossible to persuade them otherwise.

In other words, science isn't the boss of a flat earther.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Help me understand how light rays travel
« on: April 29, 2021, 05:38:42 PM »
I am one such "space skeptic/denier", and have concluded that not only is "space" complete fiction (and has its origins, indisputably, in that medium) but that it cannot exist in the reality we study.  It would violate many well established natural laws which have stood for centuries without contest.

I am one such "space skeptic/denier", and have concluded that not only is "space" complete fiction (and has its origins, indisputably, in that medium) but that it cannot exist in the reality we study.  It would violate many well established natural laws which have stood for centuries without contest.

Jack, if I understand your position correctly, you believe that space doesn’t exist independent of the matter that it is in.  If all matter disappeared, then space would cease to exist?  Is that correct?

If so, Einstein spent the better part of 10 years trying to prove exactly that.  He struggled for 10 years to come up with field equations that make all  laws of physics work exactly the way the we observe even if there was no matter in space and space ceased to exist. He failed.  IOW, in order for the laws of physics, specifically the inertial motion of bodies to behave as we observe, space must exist as a separate physical entity.

Einstein’s field equations confirm this.  Where are you equations that contradict his?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Help me understand how light rays travel
« on: April 29, 2021, 05:05:43 PM »
On light bending, look into what Dr. Edward Dowdye has to say:

Therefore according to Dr. Dowdye, all the supposed gravitational lensing that scientists see is in reality, light passing through not empty space or space-time bending, but passing through mass and the mass in space is bending the light

The mass in space bends spacetime.  You can't separate the two concepts. If light moving through mass (not even sure how that could work) is what bends it, by definition it is moving through bent space time. Wherever there is mass, there is a bend in space time.

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 8  Next >