[Sputnik]

If the Earth was accelerating "upward" constantly, bullets/projectiles would not be able to maintain straight lines or altitude for any length of time.

[juner]

If the Earth was accelerating "upward" constantly, bullets/projectiles would not be able to maintain straight lines or altitude for any length of time.

You realize it would work the same way whether gravity existed or the earth was accelerating, right?

[Sputnik]

If the Earth was accelerating "upward" constantly, bullets/projectiles would not be able to maintain straight lines or altitude for any length of time.

You realize it would work the same way whether gravity existed or the earth was accelerating, right?

You realize it would NOT work the same way, right?

[juner]

If the Earth was accelerating "upward" constantly, bullets/projectiles would not be able to maintain straight lines or altitude for any length of time.

You realize it would work the same way whether gravity existed or the earth was accelerating, right?

You realize it would NOT work the same way, right?

False. What do you think happens to a bullet fired "straight" immediately after it leaves the barrel? What difference do you see in gravity vs. acceleration in this instance?

[Sputnik]

If the Earth was accelerating "upward" constantly, bullets/projectiles would not be able to maintain straight lines or altitude for any length of time.

You realize it would work the same way whether gravity existed or the earth was accelerating, right?

You realize it would NOT work the same way, right?

False. What do you think happens to a bullet fired "straight" immediately after it leaves the barrel? What difference do you see in gravity vs. acceleration in this instance?

Wrong. What do you think would happen if an external object was moving (at over 9 meters per second) directly towards a fired projectile that was, say, 2 meters from the ground?

[juner]

It's clear you lack an understanding of basic physics. Do some research on the Equivalence Principle and apply some critical thinking. If you still have questions, I'll be around.

[Sputnik]

It's clear you lack an understanding of basic physics. Do some research on the Equivalence Principle and apply some critical thinking. If you still have questions, I'll be around.

Yes, I clearly lack this understanding. I'm not as old, smart, or experienced as you. I'm trying to understand by asking questions. Its how I learn best. Can you please help me to understand?

What would happen if an external object moved upwards at 9 meters per second towards a projectile fired in a straight line, horizontal to the ground, from 2 meters above the ground? How long would it take that external object to reach the projectile?

[juner]

I presume you mean accelerating, not moving. And also that you mean 9.8m/s^2. Let me know if I'm assuming wrong.

The same thing that would happen if you dropped an object held at 2m from an accelerating object's surface.

[Sputnik]

I presume you mean accelerating, not moving. And also that you mean 9.8m/s^2. Let me know if I'm assuming wrong.

The same thing that would happen if you dropped an object held at 2m from an accelerating object's surface.

1. acceleration is movement and yes: 9.8 meters per second.

2. Forgive me if I've not phrased my question clearly enough - its a problem because of my age - but how long will it take an object moving at 9.8 meters per second to  reach an object moving horizontally at a height of 2 meters?

[juner]

Again, this is why we use the proper terms such as "acceleration" and not "movement." 9.8 meters per second isn't acceleration. 9.8 meters per second squared is.

If you drop an object from a height of 2 meters, it will take ~0.64 seconds to reach the ground (or accelerated object in this instance). If someone shot a bullet "straight" from a height of 2m and someone next to him dropped a bullet at the same time the other person fired, both would hit the ground at the same time (ignoring wind resistance).

This is the case for both RE gravity and FE acceleration. They are equivalent.

[Sputnik]

Again, this is why we use the proper terms such as "acceleration" and not "movement." 9.8 meters per second isn't acceleration. 9.8 meters per second squared is.

If you drop an object from a height of 2 meters, it will take ~0.64 seconds to reach the ground (or accelerated object in this instance). If someone shot a bullet "straight" from a height of 2m and someone next to him dropped a bullet at the same time the other person fired, both would hit the ground at the same time (ignoring wind resistance).

This is the case for both RE gravity and FE acceleration. They are equivalent.

This is demonstrably false. They would not hit the ground at the same time. The fired bullet would take significantly longer than half a second to finally hit the ground.

What was that thing you said about basic physics?

Obviously, this is why you dont like actually answering questions or engaging with visitors.

However, I do understand and appreciate what flat earth is supposed to be - extreme skepticism. The whole Decartes thing. Good day, folks.

[juner]

Again, this is why we use the proper terms such as "acceleration" and not "movement." 9.8 meters per second isn't acceleration. 9.8 meters per second squared is.

If you drop an object from a height of 2 meters, it will take ~0.64 seconds to reach the ground (or accelerated object in this instance). If someone shot a bullet "straight" from a height of 2m and someone next to him dropped a bullet at the same time the other person fired, both would hit the ground at the same time (ignoring wind resistance).

This is the case for both RE gravity and FE acceleration. They are equivalent.

This is demonstrably false. They would not hit the ground at the same time. The fired bullet would take significantly longer than half a second to finally hit the ground.

What was that thing you said about basic physics?

Obviously, this is why you dont like actually answering questions or engaging with visitors.

However, I do understand and appreciate what flat earth is supposed to be - extreme skepticism. The whole Decartes thing. Good day, folks.

Yikes, okay, I have to assume you're just trolling at this point.

But by all means, please show it being "demonstrably false." You do know this is one of the most basic physics questions students learn the answer to, right? Please stop being so willfully ignorant. Or don't, whatever you want to do is fine. Take care.

[evergreatful]

As REer I see where you are trying to go but frame of reference diminishes this. The reason is because the object in the FE model is already and has always been accelerating at the same speed as the flat earth.  Because of this, it would not fall any faster then normal because you and the bullet were always accelerating upwards. 

However it does bring an interesting question to my mind about why we experience gravitational effects when we accelerate at great speeds.  What causes the effects felt from what RE's call "multiple G's" in the Flat earth model?

G's are even felt when accelerating in a vehicle so it can not be stress caused buy the air pressure or outside effects stressing on the car. For as I just explained if everything is accelerating together such as air in a car, the air is moving at the same speed as well.

Please if Anyone has an answer please let me know what causes what we experience when multiple gravitational Forces are put upon us from extreme acceleration if gravity is not a factor in the FE model. (Please note I know that the Gravity is a debated topic within the FE community and would only like an answer from those who are against gravity in the Model.)

[Sputnik]

Again, this is why we use the proper terms such as "acceleration" and not "movement." 9.8 meters per second isn't acceleration. 9.8 meters per second squared is.

If you drop an object from a height of 2 meters, it will take ~0.64 seconds to reach the ground (or accelerated object in this instance). If someone shot a bullet "straight" from a height of 2m and someone next to him dropped a bullet at the same time the other person fired, both would hit the ground at the same time (ignoring wind resistance).

This is the case for both RE gravity and FE acceleration. They are equivalent.

This is demonstrably false. They would not hit the ground at the same time. The fired bullet would take significantly longer than half a second to finally hit the ground.

What was that thing you said about basic physics?

Obviously, this is why you dont like actually answering questions or engaging with visitors.

However, I do understand and appreciate what flat earth is supposed to be - extreme skepticism. The whole Decartes thing. Good day, folks.

Yikes, okay, I have to assume you're just trolling at this point.

But by all means, please show it being "demonstrably false." You do know this is one of the most basic physics questions students learn the answer to, right? Please stop being so willfully ignorant. Or don't, whatever you want to do is fine. Take care.

Dude, come on...if you shoot a bullet out of a gun at a target 100 (or more) yards away and drop a bullet at the exact moment, not only will they not hit the ground at the same time but the fired bullet wont even hit the ground (assuming a decent shot, anyway!). If the Earth was moving/accelerating (especially if it was accerlerating!) upward towards a fired projectile at ANY speed, straight lines for said projectile would be impossible.

And look, I'm not trolling. To be honest, I like arguing against these ideas because they are entertaining. They necessarily require actual reasoning instead of merely repeating what I've heard. I have to actually ask myself "Why does this version of gravity fail?" and come up with thought experiments and such. Extreme skepticism, in any form, is good for the mind.

[Sputnik]

the object in the FE model is already and has always been accelerating at the same speed as the flat earth.  Because of this, it would not fall any faster then normal because you and the bullet were always accelerating upwards. 

No it would not. After the projectile is fired, it will be a completely passive participant. It has no propulsion of its own. It is not encased or held by anything.

The gun in the hand of the person standing on the Earth would "be moving upwards at all times". But once the bullet is fired, it will be subjected to gravitational forces IMMEDIATELY.

[evergreatful]

however in this model there are no Gravitational forces, therefore it would not, You have to remember that you can not acount for something that is not a factor in this model. 

[juner]

Again, this is why we use the proper terms such as "acceleration" and not "movement." 9.8 meters per second isn't acceleration. 9.8 meters per second squared is.

If you drop an object from a height of 2 meters, it will take ~0.64 seconds to reach the ground (or accelerated object in this instance). If someone shot a bullet "straight" from a height of 2m and someone next to him dropped a bullet at the same time the other person fired, both would hit the ground at the same time (ignoring wind resistance).

This is the case for both RE gravity and FE acceleration. They are equivalent.

This is demonstrably false. They would not hit the ground at the same time. The fired bullet would take significantly longer than half a second to finally hit the ground.

What was that thing you said about basic physics?

Obviously, this is why you dont like actually answering questions or engaging with visitors.

However, I do understand and appreciate what flat earth is supposed to be - extreme skepticism. The whole Decartes thing. Good day, folks.

Yikes, okay, I have to assume you're just trolling at this point.

But by all means, please show it being "demonstrably false." You do know this is one of the most basic physics questions students learn the answer to, right? Please stop being so willfully ignorant. Or don't, whatever you want to do is fine. Take care.

Dude, come on...if you shoot a bullet out of a gun at a target 100 (or more) yards away and drop a bullet at the exact moment, not only will they not hit the ground at the same time but the fired bullet wont even hit the ground (assuming a decent shot, anyway!). If the Earth was moving/accelerating (especially if it was accerlerating!) upward towards a fired projectile at ANY speed, straight lines for said projectile would be impossible.

And look, I'm not trolling. To be honest, I like arguing against these ideas because they are entertaining. They necessarily require actual reasoning instead of merely repeating what I've heard. I have to actually ask myself "Why does this version of gravity fail?" and come up with thought experiments and such. Extreme skepticism, in any form, is good for the mind.

Okay, if you're actually interested, then look up the equivalence principle. It will explain to you why gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable. Then do a Google search on "which bullet hits the ground first." You'll find that a bullet dropped at the same time as another leaves the barrel also hits the ground at the same time as the one that was fired (again, from the same height, and ignoring wind resistance). From a technical perspective, no bullet travels in a straight line regardless of the model being used. Projectile motion is parabolic, not linear.

[Sputnik]

Again, this is why we use the proper terms such as "acceleration" and not "movement." 9.8 meters per second isn't acceleration. 9.8 meters per second squared is.

If you drop an object from a height of 2 meters, it will take ~0.64 seconds to reach the ground (or accelerated object in this instance). If someone shot a bullet "straight" from a height of 2m and someone next to him dropped a bullet at the same time the other person fired, both would hit the ground at the same time (ignoring wind resistance).

This is the case for both RE gravity and FE acceleration. They are equivalent.

This is demonstrably false. They would not hit the ground at the same time. The fired bullet would take significantly longer than half a second to finally hit the ground.

What was that thing you said about basic physics?

Obviously, this is why you dont like actually answering questions or engaging with visitors.

However, I do understand and appreciate what flat earth is supposed to be - extreme skepticism. The whole Decartes thing. Good day, folks.

Yikes, okay, I have to assume you're just trolling at this point.

But by all means, please show it being "demonstrably false." You do know this is one of the most basic physics questions students learn the answer to, right? Please stop being so willfully ignorant. Or don't, whatever you want to do is fine. Take care.

Dude, come on...if you shoot a bullet out of a gun at a target 100 (or more) yards away and drop a bullet at the exact moment, not only will they not hit the ground at the same time but the fired bullet wont even hit the ground (assuming a decent shot, anyway!). If the Earth was moving/accelerating (especially if it was accerlerating!) upward towards a fired projectile at ANY speed, straight lines for said projectile would be impossible.

And look, I'm not trolling. To be honest, I like arguing against these ideas because they are entertaining. They necessarily require actual reasoning instead of merely repeating what I've heard. I have to actually ask myself "Why does this version of gravity fail?" and come up with thought experiments and such. Extreme skepticism, in any form, is good for the mind.

Okay, if you're actually interested, then look up the equivalence principle. It will explain to you why gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable. Then do a Google search on "which bullet hits the ground first." You'll find that a bullet dropped at the same time as another leaves the barrel also hits the ground at the same time as the one that was fired (again, from the same height, and ignoring wind resistance). From a technical perspective, no bullet travels in a straight line regardless of the model being used. Projectile motion is parabolic, not linear.

I'm familiar with these ideas. But perhaps we're not talking about the same thing...

If I shoot a bullet out of a gun at a target, and drop a bullet at the same time, they will definitely not hit the ground at the same time because the one I shot at the target wont even hit the ground.

[Rounder]

Sputnik, I think I see where you've made the mistake here about bullets.  If you fire the gun at a target above ground level, in order to hit that target and not hit the ground you have to aim somewhat up, above the horizontal.  This immediately invalidates the comparison to a dropped bullet, because your fired bullet follows a mostly parabolic path first UP, then eventually down.  (I say "mostly" parabolics because air resistance will shape the actual trajectory and deform the parabla)

[TotesNotReptilian]

Yes, I clearly lack this understanding. I'm not as old, smart, or experienced as you. I'm trying to understand by asking questions. Its how I learn best. Can you please help me to understand?

No, you aren't trying to understand. He is giving you good answers and you are refusing to believe him. I realize it's rather difficult to believe any physics coming from a flat-earther, but in this case, he is correct. Perhaps you will believe me instead, as someone who does NOT believe the earth is flat?

1. acceleration is movement and yes: 9.8 meters per second.

No, acceleration is absolutely NOT the same as movement. 9.8 m/s² is correct.

This is demonstrably false. They would not hit the ground at the same time. The fired bullet would take significantly longer than half a second to finally hit the ground.

If you assume no obstacles, air resistance, or curvature of the earth, then yes, they will hit the ground at exactly the same time. Horizontal motion and vertical motion are independent.

It's great that you are trying to learn this stuff, but you really need at least a basic understanding of highschool level physics before trying to argue this stuff. By your comments, I assume you haven't taken physics in highschool yet. If you are going to insult someone for their "understanding of basic physics", you better be REALLY sure you are correct. Better yet, just don't insult them at all.