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: [1] 2 3 ... 8  Next >
1
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 11, 2021, 07:45:19 PM »
Quote
I don't want SteelyBob's points or analogies. I want the points and analogies of qualified individuals. If you can't provide that then you guys have lost the argument.

What exactly do you need these qualified individuals to say?

2
Things cool down because they radiate heat.  An object that is "shaded" from moonlight is prevented from radiating as much heat because whatever is shading it will block it.

Same reason a cloudy night will be warmer than a clear night.  The clouds insulate the heat.

3
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 04, 2021, 07:07:26 PM »
Quote
Material things (i.e., matter) fall because they have weight.

Matter and weight are inseparable and elemental facts.

But yet, on the Vomit Comet, material things have mass, but they don't have weight.  Do you even know the definition of weight?

When you are on a elevator or a roller coaster, your weight will change, but your mass doesn't.  It's almost as if there is something else that determines your weight, besides mass.


4
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 04, 2021, 03:55:20 AM »
Quote
Well, yes.  But until TV is established, acceleration up is less than UA acceleration so velocity becomes less,  etc. etc.  Would have to look at it again to see exactly where it ended up.

As far as I am concerned, it is established.  The language in the wiki is clear and if I am misunderstanding, not FEer has seen fit to correct me. 

Consider the apple and tree in a vacuum if it makes you feel better.  The principle is still the same.

The bottom line is that the EP only applies when an object is "at rest"...in an unaccelerated state. If an object is being accelerated upwards, whether it is being slowed down by drag or not, it is still being accelerated.  They can't have it both ways and apply the EP, but also claim an object is being accelerated.

5
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 03, 2021, 08:07:44 PM »
Quote
Newton's 1st says that the apple will continue at the same velocity it had when the stem breaks.  It doesn't say that it will continue accelerating because there is no longer a force being applied to cause the acceleration.

There is still a force being applied to it.  The same force that was being applied to it while it was on the tree. Or have you forgotten our discussion on how FE defines terminal velocity?  "Falling objects" are accelerated up.

6
Flat Earth Community / Re: i dont understand someone help please
« on: May 03, 2021, 08:03:02 PM »
Quote
The scientific method is carefully crafted to avoid the natural and default self-delusion that belief constitutes.
Yet you reject any conclusion that has been reached by application of the scientific method.

Quote
The chances of our vain self-serving belief being correct are consistently infentessimal, and we know this from validating/verifying/testing them over millenia. 

You judging anybody for being "vain", is just too rich.  ::)

7
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 03, 2021, 07:35:54 PM »
What do you think makes things fall?
And what is the mechanism behind it?
In your own time. :)

Since Action80 won’t take you up on your challenge, I’ll take a shot and see if he has a response.

Let’s consider an apple on the branch of a tree.  What causes it to fall?  While the apple is still on the tree, we could consider the tree/apple being accelerated up by UA or at rest in a gravitational field.  Either works right up until the apple falls. After it separates from the tree, UA can again explain its motion, but it doesn’t explain why it separated from the tree in the first place. 

GR does explain it.  In GR, the tree and apple, while at rest in a gravitational field, are traveling along a geodesic.  The stem is holding the apple to the tree, so it is following the geodesic of the tree, not its own geodesic.  As the apple ripens the stem weakens and eventually breaks.  When the stem breaks, the apples is no longer prevented from traveling along its own geodesic and beings to travel independently along its own geodesic.

One could argue that when the stem breaks, the apple just stops accelerating up with the tree and waits patiently while the earth rises up.  This is not a valid argument because according to Newton’s first law, if the apple was traveling in uniform motion while it was attached to the tree, it would continue with that uniform motion whether it was attached to the tree or not.  IOW, the apple would continue its acceleration upwards at 9.81 m/s2. “Stopping” is a change in velocity and a change in velocity is acceleration.  UA offers no explanation for that acceleration. This is the fatal flaw of UA.  It rises and falls (pun intended) on the EP, but the EP doesn’t apply to accelerated motion.

Even if, by some miracle FE could come up with some explanation for how the UA force works, or even what it is, they still could not be able to account for why things fall.

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: UA and the atmosplane
« on: May 03, 2021, 06:08:16 PM »
Unless the thing was accelerated at the same time, so it would create a relative vacuum and 'pull up' the atmosphere at the same rate as the bottom part 'pushes' it up. Though, of course, that would force the atmosphere to be the same pressure throughout the volume.

Agreed.  Every solution causes another problem and every answer raises another question with FE.

9
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 03, 2021, 06:05:47 PM »
Quote
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 [emphasis mine] that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers.

You are conflating the Newton perception of gravity and GR.  In GR, gravity is not a force.  This is why GR "solved" how gravity reaches out and causes an effect from a distance.

Newton was puzzled how a force could do that.  Einstein realized it was because gravity wasn't a force, as Newton thought.  GR solves the problem that Newton struggled with.

10
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 03, 2021, 04:54:38 PM »
Quote
Again, stating another possibility is not stating a mechanism
.

I don't think you understand the word "mechanism".  It means the means by which an effect is produced.  The inertio-gravitational field is the means by which inertial and gravitational effects are produced.

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: UA and the atmosplane
« on: May 03, 2021, 04:44:58 PM »
Quote
Agreed on the pressure gradient thing but by the same token, if the Earth  is constantly accelerating, it wouldn't need to be all enveloping; just (!!) a wall roughly as high as the Karman Line, like a big baking tray.

If there were something containing the atmosphere above us, we'd see a pressure gradient in reverse of what we see.  Air pressure would increase with altitude as the atmosphere becomes compressed against whatever is containing it.

In real life, air pressure is highr at lower altitudes because as gravity works on the atmosphere, the weight of all the air above compresses the air below against the surface of the earth.  UA would have to work in reverse and compress the air against whatever is containing it.

12
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 03, 2021, 04:39:14 PM »
Quote
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.

Quote
BWAHAHAHA!!!

Thanks for the laugh!

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


13
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.

14
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 03, 2021, 01:38:43 PM »
Quote
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.


Quote
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 force...so why are you demanding that an explanation of the mechanism is necessary?


15
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




https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598414/#:~:text=During%20such%20parabolic%20flight%20an,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.

16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about the Vomit Comet
« on: May 02, 2021, 03:38:09 AM »
Quote
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.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598414/


Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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...

Quote
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.


https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2018/free-falling-the-science-of-weightlessness/

EDIT:

Quote
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.

17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about the Vomit Comet
« on: May 01, 2021, 02:53:08 PM »

Quote
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.

18
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.

19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about the Vomit Comet
« on: April 30, 2021, 05:30:50 PM »
Quote
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. 

Quote
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.

20
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.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8  Next >