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 - WTF_Seriously

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11  Next >
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why do objects fall at dofferent speeds?
« on: August 02, 2021, 07:03:00 PM »
If my initial assumption that in FET would move the skydiver the same distance in the same amount of time, only up, instead of down was an incorrect assumption,
It is.
Quote
then my initial point is just confirmed.
It's not.
Quote
You have to use different values to get the same fall time.
You don't.
Quote
You can't just change the signs.
You can.

You have a fundamental misconception of how UA works.  Under UA, the acceleration of the skydiver is zero the moment he steps out of the plane.  Keep it simple and forget about wind for a moment.  Until you grasp this concept in a vacuum, there's no reason to discuss this further.

2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why do objects fall at dofferent speeds?
« on: August 02, 2021, 06:15:21 PM »
Does UA move a skydiver the same distance in the same amount of time up as gravity would move the skydiver down?

No.  Since you continue to believe this to be the case, you'll never understand what's happening.

Quote
If the skydiver's total upward acceleration is determined by 9.8 acceleration due to UA force

It's not.

Quote
A very simple solution here is for you to show me your calculations. 

I've shown you the calculations needed (minus a discussion of wind resistance since at the current time it would be pretty pointless) more than once.  I even plugged some numbers in for you so you could see how they work.

3
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why do objects fall at dofferent speeds?
« on: August 02, 2021, 03:27:59 PM »
Wasn't really going to prolong this, but what the heck.

With all due respect, there's a few pretty smart people around these parts.  Then there's me.  I used to be pretty smart about 30 years ago, but then I realized I didn't need to be pretty smart anymore, forgot most of my smartness and proceeded to conquer my career goal of a six figure income.  If two of those pretty smart people are telling you you're mistaken, you might want to take the time to listen to them and figure out what they're saying.

First of all, velocity and acceleration are two different things.  Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity over time.  It is a component of velocity and needs to be taken into account when figuring velocity, but they are two separate concepts entirely.  Two objects can have the same rate of acceleration and have massively different velocities.

Good to know you at least understand a few of the basics.

Quote
This is the formula for constant acceleration. a=d/t^2.  Acceleration equals distance over time squared.   

Close.  I'm going to give you the credit that this is just a typo.  When you figure out what you left off let us know.

Quote
This is the formula for velocity. v=u+at, with u being initial velocity, a being acceleration and t, time.   You need to know the acceleration to solve for velocity, but they are two different things

You got another one right.  Good for you.

Quote
Secondly, when solving a distance over time problems, you use velocity not acceleration.

No.  First of all, look at what you just got right.  v=u+at.  Acceleration is a component of velocity.  If you are using velocity to solve a distance problem you must know how acceleration affects what an object's velocity is.  It's why I gave you the actual calculation for distance which is: s=ut + 1/2at2

Since you didn't bother to visit the site I offered I"ll quote the highlights.

This Displacement Calculator finds the distance traveled or displacement (s) of an object using its initial velocity (u), acceleration (a), and time (t) traveled. The equation used is s = ut + ½at2; it is manipulated below to show how to solve for each individual variable. The calculator can be used to solve for s, u, a or t.

Displacement Equations for these Calculations:
Displacement (s) of an object equals, velocity (u) times time (t), plus ½ times acceleration (a) times time squared (t2).

s=ut+1/2at2
Where:
s = displacement
u = initial velocity
a = acceleration
t = time

Use standard gravity, a = 9.80665 m/s2, for equations involving the Earth's gravitational force as the acceleration rate of an object.

Different resources use slightly different variables so you might also encounter this same equation with vi or v0 representing initial velocity (u) such as in the following form:

s=vit+1/2at2
Where:
s = displacement
vi = initial velocity
a = acceleration
t = time

I asked you not to talk to Action 80 but you did it anyway.  Your grade school speed/distance/time works great for constant velocity problems but some of us graduated from grade school and moved on to physics where things like acceleration and changing velocity are discussed.

Quote
So aside from the fact that you didn’t account for gravity
You do realize that gravity is just a different value of acceleration versus the tale, right?

Quote
or air resistance in your story
With the struggle you are having with the basics, there was no way in hell you'd understand the math to account for air resistance in any scenario.

Quote
nearly every thing about it was wrong because you never considered velocity.
If you actually understood how the story applies to your struggle to understand what's going on here, you'd see that I considered the zero initial velocity case (RE) as well as accounted for an initial velocity (FE) to try to help you see how things would work.

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why do objects fall at dofferent speeds?
« on: July 31, 2021, 05:11:22 PM »
I gave you the formula and even a website to go to.

s=ut+1/2at2 
https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/physics/displacement_v_a_t.php

I'm not sure I can help you much further.

5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: July 30, 2021, 07:13:19 PM »
Illness, disease, suffering, and death are all part of a normal life.

Diphtheria is no longer a part of normal life.
Polio is no longer a part of normal life.
Tetanus is no longer a part of normal life.
Measles are no longer a part of normal life.
Mumps are no longer a part of normal life.
Rubella is no longer a part of normal life.
Whooping cough is no longer a part of normal life.

Are we seeing a pattern yet?

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why do objects fall at dofferent speeds?
« on: July 30, 2021, 02:51:08 PM »
Why are you assuming the skydiver moves up in FET at the same rate as they would fall in RET? Air isn't a solid, it won't cause acceleration of the same magnitude as gravity until terminal velocity is reached. Until you fix this broken assumption, all your conclusions will remain incorrect.
Thank you.



Shall we play a game?

Fundamental question is, "Are the distances the same over the same given time?" in the two scenarios.

Forget about FE/RE.  Simply look at the maths: s=ut+1/2at2  This will make it easy: https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/physics/displacement_v_a_t.php (Don't tell A80 I used calculatorsoup or we'll end up in a giant digression about how to incorrectly calculate average velocity.)

You happen to run into Usain Bolt.  Being a speedy guy yourself and a huge fan you can't help yourself but give him a gigantic hug.  The two of you are standing there 2m apart.  You accelerate toward a stationary Usain at 1m/s2.  2 seconds later you've closed the 2m and give him a nice bear hug. (u=0, a=1, t=2)

Usain screams in terror which causes you to jump back 2m.  The two of you take off running at 10m/s with Usain laughing at how slow you are from 2m behind you.  Usain finally decides it's time to run you over so he begins to accelerate at 1m/s2.  In the next 2 seconds you have traveled 20m at a velocity of 10m/s. (u=10, a=0, t=2)  In that same 2 seconds Usain has traveled 22m and runs you over. (u=10, a=1, t=2)

So, the moral of the story is that with equal accelerations and the initial distance between them the same a person accelerating toward a stationary object will strike that object in the same time as a moving object accelerating toward another moving object will strike it.

I'm not sure I can help you further.

7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why do objects fall at dofferent speeds?
« on: July 29, 2021, 06:29:40 PM »

It does make a difference because the relative velocities of two moving objects is different if they are moving in opposite directions or the same direction, or if one is moving and the other is not. 

That is where the FE error lies. If the earth and the skydiver are both going up, with the diver at a slower rate, yes they will eventually meet.  But not in the same time frame as if the earth is stationary and the diver is descending.  Its the relative velocities that count, not the rate of acceleration.

In both scenarios, the relative velocities of the earth and skydiver at the moment the skydiver jumps are equal.  In RE they can be considered as both zero, in FE they are some value but in each case both the earth and the skydiver are traveling at the same velocity.  The fact that the FE skydiver keeps moving can be ignored since the earth was moving at the same velocity when the skydiver stopped accelerating.  In both scenarios, the change in the distance between the two objects is only governed by the acceleration of one of the objects and that acceleration is the same value in both scenarios at 9.8

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why do objects fall at dofferent speeds?
« on: July 29, 2021, 02:14:01 PM »
Contrary to what WTF_S said, when his chute opens, he has the same airspeed as on RE so the chute will be opening into full air-stream, just like Real Earth.

Sorry,  you are correct for the time when the chute opens.

I was thinking of when he steps out of the plane.

9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why do objects fall at dofferent speeds?
« on: July 28, 2021, 06:40:50 PM »
The FE theory, if I understand correctly, when the chute opens, the skydiver's rate of ascent decreases.  The point of the experiment is that is not what happens.   If you let go of the bag and continue to blow the same amount of air, it doesn't move up "more slowly".  It blows away entirely. (see what I said to Duncan above).  In order for the rate of ascent to decrease, the air entering the bag would have to create resistance, not thrust.   It doesn't matter if the floor is also moving up.  Depending on rates, they may or may not eventually meet, but the point is it will not be in the same time frame that we see in reality.

You're also forgetting that under FE, the chute and the air have the same velocity when it opens.  You aren't releasing the bag in a full air stream.  To simulate this, your air dryer would have to have a variable speed motor in which you would slowly increase the amount of air blowing into the bag.  At the same time more air is beginning to move the bag up slowly then increasing in velocity, the earth is also increasing in velocity only at a greater rate until they meet.

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why do objects fall at dofferent speeds?
« on: July 28, 2021, 04:11:44 PM »
If you don't mind looking stupid
I make myself look stupid all the time.  This isn't a problem.
 
Quote
Take one of those plastic grocery bags that have handles.  Wrap a blow dryer around it, put it on the floor so it is blowing up and see what happens.  To keep it from blowing away, you have to apply some resistance towards the floor.  In order for it to move towards the floor, you have to pull it down, with more force than the air is blowing it up.  There is absolutely no reason why the bag would ever move towards the floor while the air flow is up, unless there is a stronger force opposite pulling it down.  The dryer doesn't make the bag move more slowly towards the floor, it keeps it from hitting the floor at all, ever.  For as long as you sit there looking stupid blowing air into a plastic bag with a blow dryer, the bag will never hit the ground unless you pull it from the bottom (or push it from the top, too, I guess).  Let go of the bag and it just blows away in the direction of the air flow.

In other words, if there is no force pulling him down, air flow from the bottom up would only propel the skydiver up.  The force coming up from the ground and catching the parachute isn't "resistance", its thrust.

You're forgetting that not only is the bag trying to move up but the floor is moving up at the same rate under FE principles.  Nothing has to pull the bag down for it to hit the floor.  The floor simply has to move up faster to hit it.

For what stupid reason I don't know, I thought about this on my little trip home last night.  Though I'll probably screw it up, you can look at it with simple physics that I haven't done in 30 years.

We have the basic x=vt + 1/2 at2

So RE.  Let's assume we have earth (and skydiver) moving along the x axis at some initial V.  Let's say the diver jumps from 1000m.  Since the earth isn't accelerating for the two to collide we get:

vet =  vdt + 1/2 at2 + 1000m
with ve =  vd the equation becomes simply -1000=1/2(-9.8)t2. (Vaccum assumed) or  1000=1/2(9.8)t2

Under FE, at t0 both the diver and earth again have the same initial velocity but the diver stops accelerating.  So for collision the equation becomes

vdt  + 1000m = vet + 1/2 at2

in this case acceleration is positive and once again we get

1000=1/2(9.8)t2

So, either I've explained it well or made myself look stupid.  I'm OK with either.

What I'm still left with is how things work under the non-vacuum case.  RE is fairly straight forward.  Accelerate until terminal velocity and then continue.  Under FE, however, the air mass is still accelerating so terminal velocity is not constant but it is still constant relative to the earth so I don't know if it matters.  Frankly, that's about all the effort I'm going to put into it.

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why do objects fall at dofferent speeds?
« on: July 27, 2021, 10:28:19 PM »
@Mark1986

Actually thought about this a bit this afternoon.  What you describe is akin to the Doppler effect.  The amount of frequency change differs depending upon whether you are travelling away from the sound source or toward the sound source.

Not going to put the effort into trying to come up with actual numbers but conceptually I see this in your argument.  In RE, skydiver steps out of plane and falls x in time t.  In this scenario, the diver has negligible impact on the position of the earth so for all intents and purposes only the diver is moving and the earth can be considered as stationary.

In FE, skydiver steps out of plane a distance x from the earth.  However, in this case the earth pushing the atmosphere also pushes the diver.  This means that in time t, the earth must travel not only x but also the distance that the atmosphere has pushed the skydiver in that time.  Perhaps there's a FEer that can discuss this.  I see it as an interesting anamoly in the FE equivalence argument.

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why do objects fall at dofferent speeds?
« on: July 27, 2021, 07:33:49 PM »

I set initial velocity for both at zero.  My understanding is that initial relative velocity between them should be zero, although it makes more sense to me to allow an initial velocity for the earth as, as Duncan suggests, the skydiver doesn't immediately have airspeed.

I can calculate with any initial parameters anybody wants.  Just let me know what you want them to be.

Really haven't given it much thought.  I do see what you're thinking. 

13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why do objects fall at dofferent speeds?
« on: July 27, 2021, 06:17:45 PM »

If your point is that because UA and gravity are identical in magnitude (taking air resistance into account) they move the skydiver the same distance in the same amount of time, just in different directions, I agree with that.

So on RE, at 1000m, the skydiver will experience a force that will move him down from 533m to 0m in 15s, taking air resistance into consideration at .24.

On FE, at 1000m, the skydiver will experience the same magnitude of force, taking the same air resistance into account, which will move him 533m from 1000m to 1533m in 15s, give or take a few milliseconds to develop airspeed.

In the meantime, during the same 15s, the earth has moved from 0m to 1103m.

If the forces are identical in magnitude and move the skydiver the same distance in the same amount of time, just in different directions...at the end of 15s, the skydiver will be at 1533m and the earth will be at 1103m.  They are some 430m apart and the skydiver is not on the ground as we would expect to see in RE.

Are you accounting for the fact that the FE skydiver has an initial velocity?

14
Do you realize that if this bending of light were true, then the flat Earth - as seen from the Sun´s perspective - would appear to be a globe?
This is easy to see. At sunset a large cubic object (eg a huge skyscraper) is only illumunated from the front (if facing West). The roof is not ulluminated since both in RE and FE model the Sun´s rays are parallel to the ground. So seen from the Sun´s perspective, the front of the building is visible, but the roof isn´t. So the building appears to be tilted backwards 90°. This means that NASA´s pictures of a globe Earth are actually consistent with this FE theory!

On FE, a building with only one face visible from the sun at sunset would not be facing directly west unless bendy light also bends light horizontally as well as vertically.

15
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: July 15, 2021, 02:29:06 PM »
Now that the "here's how Trump can still win" mantra has faded, 'the great reset' is what we'll get to hear all about?

Hold on a second.  It's not August 13 yet.

16
That's actually a nice piece of work.  How do you account for the fact that the distance to drive a car from Los Angeles to Wilmington, NC is around 2600 miles and the distance to drive a car from Perth to Sydney is around 2500 miles yet on your map LA to Wilmington appears to be about 60% the distance?

17
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: July 13, 2021, 07:07:28 PM »
What is there to understand about the numbers?

Perhaps this related to VAERS reporting.(The numbers listed are as of July 6.  No idea what the date of your numbers is.)

Quote
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html

Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. More than 331 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through July 6, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 5,946 reports of death (0.0018%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it’s unclear whether the vaccine was the cause.Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines.

According to the CDC the US age related death rate in 2019 was 715.2 per 100,000 us population.  That would mean one could expect 357.5 deaths per 100,000 in a six month period. If you figure 2 doses per person then we're looking at 115 people million which would equate to 411,125 expected deaths pre-covid vaccine.  So, we have 9048 vaccine deaths vs. 411,125 expected deaths.  This means that getting the vaccine puts you at 2.2% the risk of death vs. not having a vaccine if you'd like to really understand your numbers.

18
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The sundial problem
« on: July 11, 2021, 08:54:44 PM »
What I'm saying is RE prediction matches what is seen.
Matches how? You haven't shown any real world evidence. Stating your theory and claiming your theory are correct is a million miles from DEMONSTRATING that your theory is correct. I could theorise that it rains blood in Kenya. This is because I believe clouds are made of sheep and it rains when God squeezes them. My theory matches what is seen and your theory isn't even close. - Can you not see how silly your argument is?

The "but you've never been there" argument is the silliest FE argument there is.  It bascially says, "I've got nothing."  There's plenty of documentation that sundials behave in the southern hemisphere similar to the northern.  I'd venture you've never been to Madagascar,  but Madagascar exists.  So does South Africa, Singapore, etc., etc.  You might want to stick with arguing Brexit and the EU.


For those who care, FE would actually give the exact same prediction but we're dealing with someone of limited intelligence so come back on page 4 or 5 when WTF_Seriously has caught up.

As for this, I've shown the FE prediction.  The drawing given is based on FE theory location of the sun as it orbits the north pole.  It in no way gives the exact same prediction as what is witnessed.  If you'd like to present some actual evidence as to the FE prediction being different I'm sure we'd all like to see it.

19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The sundial problem
« on: July 11, 2021, 02:37:36 PM »
So what you are saying is "My round earth prediction is this. Your flat earth prediction is different. Explain why your flat earth prediction is different." ... Answer ... it's a different model. One you have failed to debunk. 

What I'm saying is RE prediction matches what is seen.  You know, that zetetic thing.  FE prediction isn't even close.

20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The sundial problem
« on: July 11, 2021, 01:01:21 AM »
[thread]

Here's the sketch of how the FE sun would align with sundials at the equinox for a person at 45 deg lat.  Since at least one person is unable to envision how actual time is irrelevant to the discussion I included an additional image base on actual sun meridian time in Ottawa. 


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11  Next >